Introduction

The essays in this book, which were wr itte n be twe e n 1972 and 1976, are
linke d by a common t h e m e ; the title o f the c o lk c t io n is an a tte mpt to capture
and make e xplicit what this the me is,
'La ng ua g e is a s ocial fact% in the fr e que ntly - quote d wor ds o f Saus s ur e ;
and to le congize this is, in Saus s ure ’s vie w, a necessary step towards ide n­
tifying la n g ua g e ’ as the true obje ct of hnguis iics .Othe r s be fore him had
stressed the social characte r o f language ; for e xample Swe e t, who wrote in
1888, 'Language originate s s pontane ous ly in the individua l, fo r the imitative
and s ymbolic ins tinct is inhe r e nt in all inte llige nt beings, whe the r me n or
animals ; but, like that o f poe try and the arts, its de ve lopme nt is social'.
Obs e rvations s uch as these ca n be , a nd on occas ion are, take n as the
s pringboard for a dis play o f e xe ge tical acrobatics which leaves the original
write r's inte ntion far be hind. In re ality, s uch s tate me nts always have a
conte xt; the y are part o f a particular chain o f re as oning o r inte rpre tative
scheme. Saussure is conce rne d, a t this point in his discussion* with the special
characte r of linguis tics in r e lation to othe r sciences; Swe e t is e x pla ining the
origin a nd e volution of diale ctal variation in la n g ua g e . 夏 t is only at the risk
o f dis tortion tha t we is olate such re marks fr om the ir conte xt a nd fix the m in a
frame on the wall.
The for mula tion ‘language as social s e miotic’ says very littJe by itse lf; it
could me an almos t anything, o r nothing a t a ll It be longs to a particular
conce ptual fr ame wor k, a n d is inte nde d to suggest a par ticular inte r pr e tation
o f language within that fr ame wor k. T his ce r tainly e ncompas s e s the vie w that
language is a social fact, though pr obably not quite in the Saus s ure an sense,
which F ir th glossed a s 4the language o f the c ommuntty >a function o lla masse
parfante s tore d and re s iding in the conscie nce colle ctiv e ^
Language arises in the life o f the individual through an ongoing e xchange
o f me anings with s ignificant othe rs . A child creates, first his child tongue ,
the n his mothe r tongue , in inte r action w ith that little cote rie o f pe ople who
cons titute his me aning group. In this sense language is a pr oduc t o f the
social process.
A child le arning language is at the s ame time le a r ning othe r things through
language - building up a pictur e o f the re ality tha t is a r ound him a nd inside
him. In this process, whic h is al&o a s ocial process, the cons trual o f re ality is
ins e parable fr om the cons trual o f the s e mantic system in which the re ality is
e ncode d. In this s e ns e language is a s hare d me a ning pote ntial, at once
2 Intr oduc tion

both a part of e xpe rie nce and an inte rs ubje ctive inte r pr e tation o f experi*
ence.
There ar e two funda me nta l aspects to the social re ality tha t is e ncode d in
language : t o paraphras e Levi- Strauss, i1 is both ‘good to think' and *good to
e at . Language expresses a nd s ymbolize s this dual aspect in its s e mantic
system, which is or ganize d a r o und the twin motifs of re fle ction and action -
language as a me ans o f re fle cting on things , a nd language as a me ans o f
acting on things . T he for me r is the ‘ide ationaP compone nt o f me aning; the
latte r is the ^inte rpe rs onal ’ - one can act s y m bolic ally only on pe rs ons , not on
objects*
A social re ality (o r a ‘c ultur e is its e lf an e difice o f me anings - a s e miotic
cons truct‘ In this pe rspe ctive , language is one o f the semioclc systems that
cons titute a culture ; one tha t is dis tinctive in tha t it als o serves as an e ncoding
system for many (though not a ll) o f the othe rs .
T his in s ummary te rms is what is inte nde d by the for mula tion la ngua ge as
social s e m io tic ' It me ans inte rpr e ting language within a s ociocultur al c on­
text, in which the cultur e its e lf is inte r pr e te d in s e miotic te rms - as an
infor ma tion system, if that te r minology is pre fe rre d.
At the mos t concre te le ve l, thi& me ans that we take account o f the
e le me ntary fact that pe ople talk to e ach othe r. Langua ge does not cons is t o f
sentences; it consists o f text, or dis cours e —the e xchange o f me anings in
inte rpe rs onal conte xts of one kind or anothe r . The contexts in which mean-
ings are e xchange d are not de void of s ocial value ; a conte xt o f s peech is its e lf
a s e miotic cons truct, having a for m (de r iving fr om the c ultur e ) that e nable s
the participants to pre dict fe ature s o f the pr e vailing register - and hence to
unde r s tand one a nothe r as they go along.
But they do more than unde r s tand e ach othe r , in the sense of e xchanging
info r ma tio n and goods- and- services thr ough the dynamic inte rplay o f
s peech roles. By the ir e ve ryday acts o f me aning, pe ople act o ut the social
s tructure , affir ming the ir o w n status es and roles, a nd e s tablis hing a nd
tia n s m uting the s hare d systems o f valu« a nd of knowle dge . In re ce nt years
our unde r s tanding o f these processes has be e n advance d mos t o f all by
Be r ns te in a nd La bo v two or iginal thinke r s whos e ideas, though ofte n
pre s e nte d as conflicting, are in fact s trikingly comple me ntary, the one
s tartiag fr om s ocial s tructure a nd the othe r fr om linguis tic s tructure ,
Be r ns te in has s hown how the s e miotic systems o f the culture be come
diffe r e ntially accessible to diffe r e nt s ocial gr oups ; La bov has s hown how
variation in the linguis tic system is func tiona l in expressing var iation in
social status and roles.
Putting these two perspective s toge the r, we be gin to see a little way into
the rathe r elusive r e lation be twe e n language a nd s ocial s tructure . Va r ia tion
in language is in a quite dire ct sense the e xpre s s ion o f funda me nta l attribute s
o f the social system; diale ct va r ia tion expresses the diversity o f s ocial s truc­
ture s (s ocial hie rarchie s o f all kinds ), while re gis te r var iation expresses the
diversity o f social proce sse s. An d since the two are inte r conne cte d —what we
d o is affe cte d by w ho we are: in othe r words , the divis ion o f la bour Is s oc ial —
 Intr oduc tion 3

dialects be come e ntangle d with registers. T he registers a pe rs on has access

to are a function o f his place in the s ocial s tructure ; a nd a s witch o f register
may e ntail a switch o f diale ct.
T his is how we try to account for the eme rge nce of s ta nda r d diale cts , the
corr e lation o f diale cts a nd registers, and the whole comple x ide ology o f
language attitude s and value judge me nts . But these imply more than the
s imple notion that language ^expresses' s ocial s tructure and the social sys­
tem. It would be ne are r the point to say that language activ e ly s y m bolize s the
social system, re pre s e nting me taphor ically in its patte rns o f var iation the
variation that characte rize s huma n culture s . T his is what e nable s pe ople to
play with var iation in language , us ing it to create me anings o f a social kind:
to participate in all forms of ve rbal conte s t and ve rbal dis play, a nd in the
e laborate rhctoric o f or dinar y daily conve rs ation. It is this same twofold
function o f the linguis tic system, its func tion both as e xpre s s ion o f and as
me taphor for s ocial processes, that lies be hind the dynamics of the inte r ­
re lation o f language and s ocial conte xt; which e ns ure s that, in the micro-
e ncounte rs o f e ve ryday Jife whe re me anings are e xchange d, language not
only serves to facilitate a nd s uppor t othe r mode s o f social action that
cons titute its e nvir onme nt, but als o active ly creates an e nvir onme nt o f its
own, so making possible all the imaginative mode s of me aning, fr om ba ck­
yard gossip to narrative fiction and epic poe try. T he conte xt plays a part in
de te r mining what we say; and what we say plays a part in de te r mining the
context. As we le arn how to me an, we le ar n to pre dict each from the othe r.
The significance o f all this for linguis tics is th a t these cons ide rations he lp
to e xplain the nature of the linguis tic system. We s hall not come to unde r ­
s tand the nature of language if we purs ue only the kinds of que s tion about
language that are for mulate d by linguists* F o r linguis ts language is obje ct -
linguistics is de fine d as Saus sure a Ad his conte mpor ar ie s so ofte n felt the
need to affirm, by the fact tha t it has language as its obje ct o f s tudy; whe re as
for othe r s language is an ins trume nt, a me a ns o f illuminatLng que s tions
about s ome thing else. T his is a valid and impo r ta nt dis tinction. But it is a
dis tinction o f goals no t one of scope. In the waile d garde ns in which the
dis cipline s have be e n sheltered since the e arly years o f this ce ntury, e ach has
claime d the right to de te r mine no t only what que s tions it is as king b ut also
what it w ill take into account in ans we ring the m; a nd in linguis tics , this le ads
to the cons truction o f e le gant seEf- contained systems that are o f only limite d
application to any real issues - since the obje cts the ms e lve s have no such
boundar y walls. We have to take account o f the que s tions that are rais ed by
others; not s imply o ut o f a sense of the social accountability o f the dis cipline
(though that wo uld be re as on e no ug h), b u t also out o f sheer self- interest -
we s hall be tte r unde r s tand language as an obje ct if we inte r pr e t it in the light
o f the findings a nd s e e kings o f thos e for whom language is a n ins tr ume nt, a
me ans towards inquir ie s o f a quite diffe r e nt kind.
In these essays, the atte mpt is made to lo ok into language fr om the
outs ide ; and s pe cifically, to inte r pr e t linguis tic processes fr om the
s tandpoint o f the s ocial orde r. T his is in s ome contras t to the re ce ntly
4 Intr oduction

pr e vailing mode , in which the angle o f re as oning has bee n fr om the language
outwards , and the main conce rn was with the individua l mind. For much of
the past twe nty years linguis tics has be e n do mina te d by an individualis t
ide ology, having as one o f its article s o f faith the as tonis hing dic tum first
e nunciate d by Ka tz and F o do r in a treatise on s e mantics which e xplicitly
banis he d all reference to the s ocial conte xt o f language tha t ‘ne arly every
sentence utte re d is utte re d for the first t im e / On ly in a very spe cial kind of
social conte xt could s uch a claim be take n s e r io u s ly that of a highly
inte lle ctual and individual conce ption of language in which the obje ct of
s tudy was the ide alize d sentence o f an e qua lly ide alize d s pe ake r. Eve n with
the br e akthr ough to a ‘s ociolinguis tic’ pe rs pe ctive , it has prove d difficult to
bre ak away from the ide al individual in whose m in d all social knowle dge is
stored.
The 'gr a mmar 1 o f this kind of linguis tics is a set of rule s; and the c on­
ce ptual fr ame wor k is dr awn from logic, whe nce is de rive d a mode l of
language in which the or ganizing conce pt is tha t o f s tructure . Since the
s tructural functions are de fine d by logical r e lations (e- g. s ubje ct and pr e ­
dicate ), the linguis tic re lations are seen as for mal r e lations be twe e n classes
(e .g. noun and ve rb). It was Ch o m s k y ^ imme ns e achie ve me nt to show how
natur al language can be r e duce d to a for mal system; and as long as the
twofold ide alization o f s pe ake r a nd s e nte nce is ma inta ine d intact, language
can be re pre s e nte d not only as rule s but eve n as or de r e d rules. But whe n
social man come s into the picture , the orde ring dis appe ars and even the
conce pt o f rules is se e n to be thre ate ne d.
In re al life , mos t sentence s th a t are utte re d are not utte r e d for the first
time . A gre at de al o f dis cours e is more or less r outimze d; we tell the same
s tories and express the same opinions ove r a nd ove r again. We do, o f course,
create new sentences; we als o cre ate new clauses, a nd phras e s , and w o r d s -
the image o f language as 'old words in new sentences' is a ve ry s upe rficial
a nd s implis tic one . But it re ally doe s not matte r whe the r we do this or not;
what matte rs is that we all the time exchange me aniags , and the e xchange o f
me anings is a creative process in which language is one s ymbolic re source -
pe r haps the principal one we have, b ut s till one a mong othe rs . Whe n we
come to inte r pr e t language in this pe rs pe ctive , the conce ptual fr ame wor k is
like ly to be dr awn fr om rhe toric r athe r than fr om logic, and the gr ammar is
like ly to be a gr ammar of choice s r athe r tha n o f rules. T he s tructure o f
sentences and othe r units is e xplaine d by de r ivation from the ir functions
which is doubtle s s how the s tructure s e volve d in the first place . Language is
as it is because of the functions it has e volve d to serve in pe ople 's lives; it is to
be e xpe cte d tha t linguis tic s tructures could be unde r s tood in func tiona l
te rms . But in orde r to unde r s tand the m in this way we have to proce e d fr om
the outs ide inwards , inte rpr e ting language by reference to its place in the
social process. T his is not the s ame thing as ta king an is olate d sentence a nd
planting it out in some hothous e tha t we call a social conte xt. It involve s the
difficuJt tas k of focus ing atte ntion s imultane ous ly on the actual and the
pote ntial, inte rpr e ting both discourse and the linguis tic system that lies
 Intr oduc tion 5

be hind it in te rms o f the infinite ly comple x ne twor k o f me a ning pote ntial

that is what we call the culture .
If I me ntion the name s o f thos e whos e ide as I have bor rowe d, it is not to
claim the ir author ity, but to express inde bte dne s s and to give the re ade r
some hint o f what to expect. T he pre s e nt pe rs pe ctive is one which derives
fr om the e thnographic- de s criptive tr adition in linguistics; from Saussure and
Hje lms le v, fr om Mathe s ius and the Prague s chool fr om Ma linow s ki and
Fir th, fr om Boas , Sapir a nd Whor f. Am o n g conte mpor arie s , e ve ryone c on­
ce rne d with 1s ociolinguis tics ' is inde bte d to Willia m La bov; whe the r or not
we accept aJ] of his views, he has uncove re d ne w facts about language (a rare
accomplis hme nt) and le d the s ubje ct along ne w a nd re warding paths.
Am o n g all thos e I have re ad and, whe ne ve r pos s ible t lis te ne d to, my pe r­
sonal de bt is owe d e s pe cially to Bas il Be r ns te in a nd Mar y Douglas , to
Sydney La m b and Ad a m Ma k k a i, to Je ffre y Ellis a nd Je a n Or e , to Trevor
Hill, Jo hn Sinclair, Jo h n Re ga n, Paddy O ’T oole and Ro b in Fawce tt, to my
wife Ruqaiya Has an, a nd to my for me r colle ague s in Edinbur gh and
London. Such ide as as I have br ought toge the r here ar c the outc ome o f the
ongoing e xchange of me anings that s ome how add up to a cohe re nt ‘context
o f s ituation’ that in whic h language is us e d re fle xively to e xplore itself.
Be yond these cons ide rations lies a n oute r conte xt, that o f language and
the huma n condition. Put in more pros aic te rms , this me ans that my intere st
in linguis tic que s tions is ultimate ly an 4applie d^ one , a conce r n with language
in re lation to the process a nd e xpe rie nce of e ducation. From w o r king o ve r a
numbe r o f years with teachers at all levels, primary, s e condary and tertiary,
in various aspects o f language le a r ning and language te aching, including
le ar ning to re ad and write , de ve loping the mothe r tongue s tudying fore ign
language s and e x plor ing the natur e of language , I have be come convince d o f
the importance of the s ociolinguis tic backgr ound to e ve rything that goes on
in the classroom* T he s ociolinguis tic patte rns o f the c ommunity, the la n­
guage o f fa mily« ne ighbour hood and s chool, and the pe rs onal e xpe rie nce o f
language from e arlie s t infancy are a mong the mos t funda me nta l e le me nts in
a c hild’s e nvir onme nt for learning* T his e mphas is is dire ctly re fle cte d in
some o f the pape rs in this volume , for e xample in the final dis cus s ion o f
topics for furthe r e x plor ation with the s ugge s tion o f the clas s room as a
centre o f s ociolinguis tic rese arch. But indire ctty it is pre s e nt thr oughout the
book. If some o f the ar gume nt seems re mote fr om eve ryday proble ms o f
living and le arning, this is because these pr oble ms are not simple* a nd no
s imple account o f what happe ns at the s urface o f things is like ly to be o f
much he lp in s olving them-
The sociolinguistic
perspective
Language and social man
(Part 1)

1 L anguage and the envir onment

If we ever come to look back on the ide ology o f the 1970s ' as suggested by
the write r o f an imaginar y ‘re tros pe ct fr om 1980* publis he d in T he Obs e rv e r
in the first issue o f the de cade we are like ly to see one the me cle arly s tanding
out, the the me o f "social m a n ' N o t s ocial ma n in oppos ition to individual
man, but rathe r the individua l in his social e nvironme nt. Wha t the write r was
fore cas ting - a n d he seems like ly to be prove d accurate - was, in effect, that
while we s hould continue to be pre occupie d with ma n in re lation to his
s urroundings , as we were in the 1960s, the 1970s w ould show a change of
e mphas is fr om the pure ly phys ical e nvir onme nt to the s ocial e nvir onme nt.
T his is not a new conce rn, but it has te nde d up to now to take s e cond place ;
we have be e n more involve d ove r the pas t twe nty years with town pla nnia g
and urban re ne wal, with the flow o f traffic a r ound us a nd above o ur heads,
and mos t recently with the p o lluiio n and de s truction o f our mate rial
resources. T his ine vitably has dis tracte d us fr om thinking abo ut the othe r
part o f our e nvir onme nt, that which cons is ts o f pe ople - not pe ople as me re
quanta o f humanity , so many to the square mile , b u t othe r individuals with
whom wc have de alings o f a more or less pe r s onal kind.
T he ‘e nvir onme nt’ is s ocial as well as phys ical, and a state o f we llbe ing,
which de pe nds o n har mony with the e nvir onme nt, de ma nds har mony o f
both kinds . The nature of this state o f we llbe ing is what e nvir onme nta l
s tudie s are about. T e n years ago wc first came to hear o f ‘e r gonomic s ' the
s tudy and contr ol o f the e nvir onme nt in which pe ople wor k; ma ny will
re me mbe r London T r ans por t’s adve rtis ing s logan ‘How big is a bus dr ive r ?',
a nnounc ing the de s ign o f ne w buses ‘o n e r gonomic principle s ’ T his was
characte ris tic of the conce ption o f the e nvir onme nt at that time . T oday we
wouJd find more e mphas is laid on the social aspects o f we llbe ing. No one
w ould assert that the shape of the bus dr ive r 's seat is unimpor ta nt; but it no
longe r seems to be the whole story. T he re are othe r aspects of e nvir on­
me nta l de s ign which seem at le as t as s ignificant a nd which are cons ide rably
more difficult t o adjus t.
Cons ide r for e x ample the proble m o f pollution, the de fe ns ive aspect of
e nvir onme nta l de s ign. T he r ubbis h cr e e p the c onta mina tion o f air and
wa te r e ve n the mos t le thal processes o f phys ical pollution appe ar to be more
tractable than the po llutio n in the s ocial e nvir onme nt that is caus ed by
 Language and s ocial ma n (Par t I ) 9

pre judice and animos ity of race , cultur e and class. These c a nno i be
e ngine e re d away. One o f the more dange r ous o f the te rms that have be e n
coine d in this area is *social e ngine e ring*; dange r ous not so much because it
suggests ma nipula ting pe ople for evil e nds - mos t pe ople are alert to that
d a n g e r *b u t because it implie s that the social e nvir onme nt can be fas hione d
like the phys ical one by me thods o f de molition a nd cons truction, if only the
plans and the machine s a re b ig e nough and complicate d e nough. Some o f the
unfor tunate effects of this kind o f thinking have be e n seen fr om time to lime
in the fie ld of language and e ducation. But social we llbe ing is not de finable ,
or attainable , in these te rms.
‘Educ a tio n’ may s ound Jess e xciting than social e ngine e ring, but it is an
olde r conce pt and one that is more re le vant 10 o ur needs. If the engine e rs
and the town planne rs can m o uld the phys ical e nvironme nt, it is the teachers
who exert the mos t influe nce on the social e nvir onme nt. T he y do so not by
manipulating the s ocial s tructure (w hic h would be the e ngine e ring
approach) but by playing a m a jo r part in the process whe re by a huma n be ing
be comes social man. T he s chool is the ma in line o f de fe nce agains t pollution
in the human e nvir onme nt; and we s hould not pe rhaps dis mis s the notion of
'defence* too lightly, be cause de fe ns ive action is ofte n precisely what is
needed. Pre ve ntive me dicine , afte r all, is de fe ns ive me dicine ; a nd what the
school has faile d to pre ve nt is le ft to society to cure .
In the de ve lopme nt of the c hild as a social be ing, language has the ce ntral
role. Language is the main channe l thr ough which the patte rns o f Hving are
tr ans mitte d to him thr ough which he le arns to act as a me mbe r of a ‘s ocie ty’
- in and thr ough the various s ocial groups , the family, the ne ighbour hood,
and so on - and to a dopt its ^c ultur e ' its mode s of thought and action, its
beliefs and its value s. T his doe s no t happe n by ins truction at least not in the
pre- school years; nobody teac hes him the pr inciple s on which social groups
are organize d o r the ir systems o f beliefs, nor w ould he unde r s tand it if they
tried. It happe ns indire ctly thr ough the accumulate d e xpe rie nce o f nume r ­
ous s mall e vents ’ ins ignificant in the ms e lve s , in which his be ha viour is
guide d a nd controlle d, and in the course o f which he contracts and de ve lops
pe rs onal re lations hips o f all kinds . All this take s place thr ough the me dium
of language . An d it is not from the language o f the clas s room, still less that of
courts of law, o f moral tracts o r of te xtbooks o f s ociology, that the child
learns about the culture he was bor n into. T he s triking fact is that is the
most or dinar y e ve ryday uses o f language with parents, brothe rs a nd sisters
ne ighbour hood childr e n, in the home , in the street and the pa r k in the s hops
and the trains and the buses, that serve to tr ans mit, to the child, the essential
qualitie s o f society and the nature o f social be ing.
T his , in brie f, is what this chapte r is about. It is a ge ne ral dis cus s ion o f the
reJation o f language to s ocial m a n a nd in par ticular language as it impinge s
on the role of the te ache r as a cr e ator o f s ocial m a n - o r at least as a midwife
in the cr e ation process. T hat this does not me a n s imply language in s chool is
already clear. It me ans , rathe r, language in the total conte xt of the inte rac­
tion be twe e n an individual and his hum a n e nvir onme nt: be twe e n one in d i­
10 The s ociolinguis tic pe rs pe ctive

vidual a nd othe rs , in fact. But the point o f view to be adopte d will be an

e ducational one« e mphas izing those aspects of language and s ocial man thai
are mos i re le vant to the te ache r in the clas s room.
Lt might seem, that one co uld hardly be gin to cons ide r language at all
without taking account o f social ma n since language is the me ans whe re by
pe ople inte ract. How else can one look at language ex cept in a s ociai conte xt?
In the last resort, it is true that the existence o f language implie s the existence
of social man; but this does no t by its e lf de te r mine the point o f vantage from
which language is be ing appr oache d. Le t us think for a mome nt o f an
individual huma n be ing, cons ide re d as a single organis m. Be ing human, it is
als o articulate : it can s pe ak and unde r s tand language , and pe rhaps read and
write as well. Now the ability to s pe ak a nd unde r s tand aris e s a nd make s
sense, only because there are othe r such organis ms a r ound a nd it is natur al
to think o f it as an inte r- organis m phe nome non to be s tudie d from an
inter- organism point o f vie w. Bu t it is also pos s ible to inves tigate language
from the s tandpoint o f the inte rnal make - up o f that organis m: the brain
structure, and the ce re bral processes lh a t are involve d in its s pe aking and
unde r s tanding, a nd als o in its le a r ning to spe ak a nd to unde r s tand. So there
is an intra- organis m pe rs pe ctive on language as we llas aninte r ~ or ganis mone .
The two s tandpoints are comple me nta r y; but the r e te nd to be shifts o f
e mphas is be twe e n the m, tre nds and fas hions in s cholar s hip which lead (o
conce ntr ation o n one , for a time , at the e xpe ns e of the othe r . In the 1960s the
ma jor e mphas is was on wKat we are calling intra- organis m studies, on the
inve s tigation o f language as knowle dge^ of ‘what the s pe ake r knows r u n ­
ning para}| e1 t o and pr obably occas ione d b y the re lative neglect o f ma n s
social e nvir onme nt. T he re has now be e n a move back towards a gre ate r
conce rn with the s ocial aspects o f language , a re s toring of the balance in
linguis tic s tudie s , with account once more be ing take n o f the inte r- organis m
fa c to r - t ha t o f language as s ocial be haviour , or language in r e lation to social
man.
A diagr ammatic re pre s e ntation o f the nature of Linguistic s tudie s a nd the ir
re lation to othe r fields of s cholars hip will serve as a point o f refe rence for the
s ubs e que nf discussion (figure 1). T he diagr a m s hows the do ma in o f language
s tudy - of linguis tics to give it its s ubje ct title - b y a br oke n line ; e ve rything
within that line is an as pe ct or a branch of linguis tic s tudie s .
rn (he centre is a tr iangle s hown by a s olid line , which marks o ff what is the
ce ntral are a o f language study, tha t o f language as a system. One way o f
s aying what is me ant by ‘ce ntr al’ he re is that if a s tude nt is taking linguis tics
as a unive rs ity s ubje ct he will have to cove r this are a as a compuls or y part o f
his cours e, whate ve r othe r as pects he may choos e to take up ’ T he re are the n
ce rtain proje ctions fr om the triangle , re pre s e nting special s ub- disciplines
within this ce ntral area: phone tics his torical linguis tics and diale ctology -
the las t of these best th o ug ht o f in broade r te rms , as the stody of Language
varieties. These s ome time s get e x clude d fr om the ce ntral re gion but pr o b­
ably mos t linguis ts w ould agree in placing the m within it; if one could give a
thre e - dime ns ional r e pre s e ntation they would not look like excrescences.
 Language a nd social ma n (F a r t 1) 11
lit e r a r y
studi es

bioiogy

F电 t

T he n, outs ide this triangle , are the principal perspectives on language that
take us be yond a cons ide ration s ole ly o f language as a system, a nd, in so
doing, impinge o n othe r dis cipline s . An y study o f language involve s some
atte ntion to othe r dis cipline s ; one cannot dr aw a boundar y r ound the s ubje ct
and ins ulate it from othe rs . T he que s tion is whe the r Che aims go be yond (he
e lucidation of language its e lf; a nd once one goes outs ide the ce ntr al ar e a’
one is inquir ing not only into language but into language in r e lation to
s ome thing eJse. The diagr am s ummarize s these wide r fie lds unde r the thre e
he adings , la n g ua g e as knowle dge ’ ‘language as b e h a v io u r ' la ng ua g e as
ar t .
T he last o f these take s us into the r e alm of lite rature , which is all t o o ofte n
tre ate d as if it was s ome thing ins ulate d from and e ve n oppos e d to language :
lwe conce ntr ate ma inly on lite rature here - we d o n ’t do much on la ng ua g e '
as if ^conce ntrating on lite r a tur e ' made it pos s ible to ignore the fact that
lite rature is made o f language . Similarly the unde r gr aduate is invite d to
4choos e be twe e n lang. and lit . . In fact the dis tinction that is b ^ing implie d is
a pe rfe ctly me aningful one be twe e n tw o diffe r e nt e mphas e s or or ie ntations .
12 T he $ociolinguis hc perspective

one in which the centre of atte ntion is the linguis tic system and the othe r
having a focus e ls e whe re ; but it is wrongly name d a nd the re fore , pe rhaps ,
liable to be mis inle r pr e ie d. One can hardly lake lite rature seriously without
taking language s e rious ly; but language here is be ing looke d a t from a
special point o f view.
T he othe r tw o he adings de rive fr om the dis tinction we have jusc be e n
dr awing be twe e n the inira- organis m pe rs pe ctive , language as knowle dge ,
and the inte r- organis m pe rspe ctive , language as be haviour. These both le ad
us outwar d fr om language as a system, the for me r into the re gion of psy­
chological studies, the latte r into sociology and re late d fields. So in putting
language into the conte xt o f ‘language and social m a n we are taking up one
of the options lha t are ope n for the re lating o f language study t o o t h e r fields
of inquir y. This, br oadly is the s ociolinguis tic option; and the new s ubje ct of
s ociolinguis tics that has come into promine nce late ly is a r e cognition o f the
fact that language and sociely - or , as we pre fe r to think o f it ’ language and
social ma n - is a unifie d conce ption, a nd ne e ds to be unde r s tood and
inve s tigate d as a whole . Ne ithe r o f these exists without the othe r: there can
be no social man without language , and no language without social man. To
recognize this is no me re acade mice x e ⼁丨 cise; the whole the ory and practice of
e ducation de pe nds on it, and it is no e xagge ration to suggest tha t m uch o f our
failure in recent ye ar s - the failure o f the s chools lo come lo grips with social
pollution - can be trace d to a lack o f ins ight into the nature o f the r e la­
tions hips be twe e n language and society: s pe cifically of the processes, which
are very largely linguis tic processes whe re by a human organis m turns into a
socia] be ing.

2 Inter~organlsm and inlr a^or ganism per spectives

The diagr am in section I suggests a conte xt for Language study, placing ii in
the e nvir onme nt of othe r fie lds o f inve s tigation. It als o suggests where
'language and social m a n fits into the total picture o f language study. The
discussion of the diagr am will pe r haps have made it cle ar (and this harks
back to what was said at the be ginning) that whe n we talk of "social ma n' (he
contras t we are ma king is not tha t o f social versus individua l. The contr as t is
rathe r tha t o f s ocial ve rs us psycho phys iological, the dis tinction which we
have atte mpte d to dr aw in te rms o f inte r- organis m and intra- organism
perspectives.
Wh e n we re fe r to social m a n we me an the individual cons ide re d as a
single e ntity, rathe r tha n as an as s e mblage of parts. T he dis tinction we are
dr awing here is lh a t be twe e n the be ha viour o f that individua l, his actions and
inte ractions with his e nvir onme nt (e s pe cially that part o f his e nvir onme nt
which consists o f othe r individuals )^ on the one h a n d >a nd on the othe r hand
his biological natur e , and in par ticular the inte r nal s tructure o f his br ain. In
the first of these perspectives we are re garding the individua l as an inte gral
whole a nd looking at him from the outs ide ; in the s econd we are focusing
our a tte ntion on the parts, and lo o king on the ins ide into the works.
 Language and social ma n (P a n 1) 13

Language can be cons ide re d fr om e ithe r o f these points of vie w the first is
what we calle d on the diagr am la ng ua g e as be ha vio ur the s e cond 'language
as knowledge*. 'Language and s ocial m a n’ me ans language as a function of
the whole man; hence language man to ma n (inte r- organis m), or language as
human be haviour .
These are two comple me ntar y orie ntations . T he dis tinction be twe e n the m
is not a difficult one to make ; in its e lf it is r athe r obvious and s imple . Bu t it
has be come complicate d by the fact chat it is pos s ible to e mbe d one pe rspe c­
tive inside the othe r; to tr e at language be haviour as if it were an aspect o f our
knowle dge o f language (a nd he nee to see it in te rms o f the capacity o f the
human br ain), and also, though in a r athe r diffe re nt sense to tre at the
individua l’s knowle dge o f language as a for m o f be haviour. In othe r words
we can look at social facts fr om a biological point of vie w, or at biological
facts fr om a social point o f vie w.
The s tudy of language as knowle dge is an atte mpt to find o ut what goes on
inside the ind ividua l’s he ad. T he que s tions be ing as ke d ar e what are the
me chanis ms of the br ain tha t are involve d in s pe aking and unde rs tanding,
and what mus t the s tructure o f the br ain be like in or de r for the individual to
be a b le t o s p e a k a n d u n d e r s t a n d la n g u a g e , a n d t o be a b le t o le a r n t o d o s o ?
Now one impor ta nt fact about s pe aking and unde r s tanding language is
that it always takes place in a conte xt. We do not s imply ‘kno w ’ o ur mothe r
tongue as an abs tract system o f vocal s ignals o r as if it was s ome s on o f a
gr ammar book with a dictionar y attache d. We know it in the sense o f
knowing how to use it; we know how to c ommunic at e with othe r pe ople ,
how to choose for ms of language that are appr opriate lo ih e type o f s ituation
we find ours e lve s in, a nd so on* All this can be expressed as a form of
knowle dge : we know how to be have linguis tically.
T he re fore it is pos s ible , and is in fact quite us ual in what is nowadays
calle d ‘s ociolinguis tics ' to lo ok at language be ha viour as a type o f knowl­
e dge ; so that although one 's atte ntion is focus e d on the s ocial aspects of
language - on language as c ommunic a tio n be twe e n organis ms —one is still
asking what is es s entially an intra- organis m kind o f que s tion: how doe s the
individual k now how to be have in this way? We might re fe r to this as
ps ychos ociolinguis tics : it is the e xte rnal be ha viour o f the organis m looke d at
from the point o f vie w o f the inte r nal me chanis ms which contr ol it
We said above that the two pe rs pe ctive s were comple me ntar y, a nd it
would be re as onable to conclude tha t the y are re ally ins e par able one from
the othe r . But if so the ins e par ability holds in bo th dire ctions . It is true (hat
the individuaPs pote ntial for linguis tic inte raction with othe rs implie s ce rtain
things about the inte r nal make - up o f the individual hims e lf. But the con­
verse is also true. T he fact that the br ain has the capacity to store language
and use it for effective c ommunic a tio n implie s that communic ation take s
place: tha t the individual has a ‘be haviour pote ntia l which characte rize s his
inte raction w ith othe r individuals o f his species.
Since no do ubt the huma n br ain e volve d in its pre s e nt for m thr ough the
process o f huma n be ings c ommunic a ting with one anothe r the latte r
14 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

perspective is like ly to be highly s ignificant from an e volutionary point o i

view. But that is not our ma in point o f de par tur e here. T he re is a more
imme diate sense in which the individua l, cons ide re d as one w ho can s pe ak
and unde r s tand and re ad and write , w ho has a ‘mothe r t o n g u e ' ne e ds to be
seen in a social perspective. T his conce rns the part that language has playe d
in his own de ve lopme nt as an individua l. Le t us start with the notion of the
individual huma n organis m, the hum a n be ing as a biological s pe cime n. Like
the individual in many othe r species, he is de s tine d to be come one o f a
gr oup; but unlike thos e o f all othe r species, he achieves t h is - n o t wholly, b u t
critically ⼀一thr ough language . It is by me a ns of Language that the 'huma n
be ing7 be come s one of a gr oup o f ‘pe ople . B a t ‘pe ople in tur n, cons is t o f
4pe rs ons '; by virtue of his par ticipation in a gr oup the individual is no longe r
s imply a biological s pe cime n of humanity - h e is a pe rs on. Ag a in language is
the e s s e niial e le me nt in the process, since it is large ly the linguis tic inte r­
change with the gr oup tha t de te r mine s the s tatus of the individuals and
s hape s the m as persons* T he picture is as in figure 2:

INDIVIDUAL GROUP

F ig. 2

In othe r words, ins te ad of lo oking at the gr oup as a de r iva tion fr om a nd

e xte ns ion o f the biologically e ndowe d me ntal powe r o f the individua l we
e x p la in th e n a t u r e o f t h e in d iv id u a l as a d e r iv a t io n fr o m a n d e xte ns ion o f his
pa r ticipation in the group. Ins te ad o f s tarting ins ide the organis m and
looking outwards , we can adopt a Dur kh e im ia n perspective and start from
outs ide the organis m in orde r to look inwards .
But whe n we do a dopt this perspective tt be come s appa r e nt that we can
take the diale ctic one stage fur the r, and that whe n we do so language will s till
r e main the crucial factor. The individual as a ‘pe r s on’ is now a pote ntial
‘me mbe r ,: he has the capacity to func tion w it hin society, and once more it is
thr ough language that he achie ve s this status. How does a s ocie ty diffe r from
a group, as we conce ive it he re ? A gr oup is a s imple structure^ a set o f
participants , a mong whom there are n o s pe cial r e lations only the s imple
coexistence that is implie d by participation in the gr oup. A society, on the
othe r hand doe s not consist of par ticipants but o f r e lations and these
re lations de fine s ocial roles. Be ing a me mbe r o f s ocie ty me ans occupying a
social role; and it is again by me ans o f language that a ‘pe r s on’ be come s
pote ntially the occupant of a social role .
 Language and s ocial man (Par t J) 15

Social role s are c ombinable , a nd the individual as a me mbe r of a socie ty

occupie s not jus t one role but many at a time , always thr ough the me dium o f
language . Language is again a necessary condition for this final e le me nt in
the proce ss o f the de ve lopme nt o f the individua l, fr om huma n be ing to
person to what we may call ‘pe r s onality’ a pe rs onality be ing inte rpr e te d as a
roJe comple x. He r e the individual is seen as I he configur ation o f a numbe r o f
Toles d e fin e d b y the social r e la t io n s h ip s in which h e e nt e r s ; fr o m thes e r ole s
he s ynthes izes a pe r s onality. O u r mode l now looks like figure 3:

INDIVIDUAL GROUP

personality ⼀一 '

F I0 .3

Le t us now inte r pr e t this in te rms o f a pe rs pe ctive on language . We have

gone some way r ound in orde r to re ach this particular angle o f vision,
ce rtainly ove r s implifying the pictur e and pe rhaps s e e ming to exaggerate the
importance o f language in the total process* The jus tifica tion for this is that
we have be e n trying to achie ve a pe rs pe ctive that will be mos t re le vant in an
e ducationaJ conte xt. F r om this point o f view, language is the me dium
thr ough which a huma n be ing be come s a pe rs onality, in cons e que nce o f his
me mbe r s hip of society a nd his occupancy o f social roles. T he conce pt of
language as be haviour , as a fo r m o f inte raction be twe e n ma n a nd ma n, is
tur ne d ar ound, as it were, so that it throws light on the individual: the
for mation o f the pe r s onality is itseJf a social process, o r a comple x o f social
processes, and la ng ua g e - by virtue of its social func tions - plays the key p a n
in it. He nce jus t as the view o f language as knowle dge , which is es s e ntially an
individual or ie nta tion, can be used to direct a tte ntion outwar ds thr ough
such conce pts as the s pe e ch act, towards language in society, so the es s en­
tially s ocial inte r pr e tation o f language as be ha viour can be used to dire ct
atte ntion o nto the individua l, placing h im in the hum a n e nvir onme nt, as we
expressed it e arlie r, a nd e x pla ining his linguis tic pote ntial, as s pe ake r^he are r
and writer- re ader, in these te rms . T his doe s not pre s uppos e , or pre clude ,
any particular the ory about the nature of the me ntaJ processes that are
involve d in his mas te ry o f language , e ithe r in how he spe aks a nd unde r s tands
or in how he Ie a mt to do so in the firs t place . T he re ar e conflicting
ps ychological the or ie s on these que s tions as we s hall see in the ne xt s e ction;
but our pre s e nt pe rs pe ctive is ne utr al in this respect.
T he ability to s pe ak a nd unde r s tand and t lie d e v d o p m e n t o f th is a bihty in
16 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

the child, are essential ingre die nts in the life of s ocial ma n. T o approach
these from the outs ide , as inte r- organis m phe nome na, is to take a functional
view o f Eanguage. The social as peci o f language be come s the refe rence point
for the biological aspect, r athe r than the othe r way round. In the next two
sections we s hall cons ide r brie fly what this means .

3 A functional appr oach to language and language development

In the pre ce ding section we outline d a general pe rs pe ctive o n language and
language le ar ning in which society r athe r than the individual is at the ce ntre
of the picture , and the individuaPs language pote ntial is inte rpr e te d as the
me ans whe re by the various social re lations hips into which he e nte rs aie
e s tablis he d, de ve lope d a nd ma inta ine d. T his me ans tha t we are taking a
functional view of language , in the sense that we are inte re s te d in what
language can d o or r athe r in what the s pe ake r, child or adult, can d o with it;
and that we try to e x plain the nature of Language, its inte r nal organization
and patte rning, in te rms o f the functions tha t it has e volve d to serve.
First o f all, the re fore , we s houtd look brie fly into the que s tion o f linguis tic
func iio n and say a little about it in re gard both to what language is and lo
how it is le arnt by a child. Le t us take the latte r point first, and cons ide r a
functional approach to the que s tion o f how the child te ams his mothe r
tongue . T his process, the le ar ning o f the mothe r tongue , is ofte n re fe rre d to
as la ng ua g e acquis ition'. T his seems rathe r an unfor tunate te rm be cause it
suggests that language is some kind o f ^ c ommodity to be acquire d, and,
although the me taphor is innoc e nt e nough in itself, if it is take n too lite rally
the cons e que nce s can be rathe r ha r mful. T he use of this me t aphor has le d to
the be lie f in what is know n as a 'de ficit the or y’ o f language le arning, as a
me ans o f e x plaining how childr e n come to fail in s chool: the suggestion that
ce rtain childr e n, pe r haps because o f the ir s ocial backgr ound, have not
acquire d e nough o f this commodity calle d language a nd in orde r to he lp
the m we mus t send re lie f s upplie s . T he implic a tion is that there ts a gap to be
fille d, a nd fr om this de rive various compe ns ator y practice s that may be
largely irre le vant to the childr e n’s needs. Now this is a false a nd mis le ading
view of language and o f e duca tional fa ilur e ; and while one s hould not make
too muc h o f one ite m of te r minology, we pre fe r to avoid the te r m "language
acquis ition’ and re turn to the e arlie r a nd e ntire ly appr opriate de s ignation of
‘language de ve lopme nt1.
In the ps ychological s phe re , the re have re ce ntly be e n two alte r native lines
of appr oach to the que s tion of language de ve lopme nt. These have be e n
re fe rre d to as the "nativis t and the ‘e nvir onme nta lis t pos itions . Eve ryone
agrees, of course, that huma n be ings are biologically e ndowe d with the
abiiity to le arn language , a nd that this is a unique ly hum a n attribute - no
othe r species has it howe ve r muc h a chimpanze e o r a do lp h in may be
traine d to ope rate with words o r symbols . But the nativis t vie w holds that
there is a specific language - le arning faculty dis tinct fr om othe r learning*
faculties* a nd that this provide s the hum a n infa nt with a re adymade and
 Language a nd s ocial ma n (Par t 1) 17

rathe r de taile d blue pr int o f the s tructure of language . Le a r ning his mothe r
tongue consists in fitting the patte rns o f whate ve r language he he ars ar ound
him into the frarne work which he alre ady possesses. T he e nvir onme ntalis t
vie w cons ide rs tha t language le a r ning is not fundame nta lly dis tinct from
othe r k in d s of le a r n in g ; it de pe nds on thos e same me ntal facultie s that are
involve d in all aspects of the c hild’s le ar ning processes. Ra the r than having
built into his ge ne tic ma ke up a set o f concre te unive rs als of language , what
the child has is the ability to process ce r tain highly abs tract type s o f cognitive
re lation which unde r lie (a mong othe r things ) the linguis tic system; the ve ry
specific prope rtie s o f language are not innate , and the re fore the child is more
de pe nde nt on his e nvir onme nt - on the language he hears ar ound him,
toge the r with the conte xts in which it is utte r e d - for the successful le ar ning
o f his mothe r to ng ue . In a sense, the re fore , the diffe re nce o f views is a
recurrence o f the old controve rs y o f natur e and nurture , o r he re dity and
e nvir onme nt, in a ne w guise.
Ea c h o f these views can be criticize d, a lthough the criticis ms that are
actually made ofte n re late to pa r ticular mode ls o f the te aming process that
have no necessary conne c tion with a nativis t or e nvironme ntalis t pos ition.
For e xample , it is s ome time s as s ume d tha t an e nvironme ntalis t inte rpr e ­
tation implie s s ome fo r m o f be haviouris t the ory, an es s e ntially stimulus-
response vie w o f le ar ning; but this is totally untr ue . Equa lly , the nativis t
view is by no me ans de pe nde nt on the notion tha t Learning proce e ds by
fitting ite ms into the ma r ke d slots whic h nature pr ovide d and r unning the
machine to test whe the r the match is appr opriate . The diffe re nce s be twe e n
nativis t and e nvir onme ntalis t are diffe re nce s o f e mphas is , a mong othe r
things in the ir ide as conce r ning the e s s e ntial characte r o f language which
stem from two r athe r diffe re nt traditions . Br oadly s pe aking, the nativis t
mode l reflects the philos ophical- logical s trand in the history o f thinking
a bout language , with its s harp dis tinction be twe e n the Ide al a nd the real
(which Choms ky calls ‘compe te nce ’ a nd 4pe rformance *) a nd its view of
language as rule s ⼀一es s e ntially rule s o f syntax. T he e nvironme ntalis t re p­
resents the e thnogr aphic tr a dit io n which rejects the dis tinction of ide al and
real* de fine s what is gr amma tical as, by a nd large, what is acce ptable , and
sees language as resource — resource fo r me a ning, with me a ning de fine d in
te rms o f function. T o f his e xte nt the nvo inte rpr e tations are comple me ntar y
r athe r tha n contr adictory; but the y have te nde d to be come as sociate d with
conflicting ps ychological the or ie s and tKus to be s trongly counte r pos e d.
On e ar gume nt ofte n put for war d in s uppor t o f a nativis t appr oach mus t be
dismissed a$ fallacious ; this is the the or y o f the uns tructur e d input, according
to which the child cannot be de pe nde nt o n wha t he he ars ar ound him
because what he he ars is no more than bits and pieces — unfinis he d or
ungr ammatical sentences, full o f he s itations , backtr acking, unr e late d fr ag­
me nts a nd the like . T his ide a seems to have arisen be cause the earliest
tape re cordings o f conne cte d dis cours e that linguis ts analys e d we re us ually
re cordings of inte lle ctual conve rs ations , whic h d o te nd to be very scrappy,
since the speakers are having to plan as the y go along a nd the pre mis e s are
18 T he s ociolinguis tic perspective

cons tantly s hifting, and which are also largely ins ulate d from the imme diate
s ituation, so that the re are no conte x tual clues . But it is not in fact tr ue o f the
ordinar y eve ryday s peech that typically s urr ounds the smalt child, which is
flue nt, highly s tructure d and closely re late d to the non- ve rbal conte xt of
s ituation. Mor e ove r it te nds 10 have very fe w de viations in it; I found mys e lf
whe n obs e rving the language s poke n to, a nd in the presence of, a s malt child
that almos t all the s e que nce s were we ll forme d and whole , acce ptabie even
to the sternest gr ammatical law give r O f course the fact that the notion of
uns tructure d input is uns ound does not dis prove the nativis t the ory; it
me re ly re move s one of the ar gume nts tha t has be e n us e d to s upport it.
More impor tant than the gr a mmatica l s hape o f what the child hears,
howe ve r is the fact that it is func tionally re late d to obs e rvable fe ature s o f
the s ituation ar ound him. This cons ide ration allows us to give anothe r
account of language de ve lopme nt that is not de pe nde nt on any particular
ps ycholinguis tic theory, an account tha t is func tiona l and s ociological rathe r
than s tructural and ps ychotogicaL The two are not in co mpe tition; they are
about diffe r e nt things- A functional the ory is not a the or y about the me ntal
processes involve d in the le a r ning o f the mothe r tongue ; it is a the or y about
the social processes involve d. As we expressed it in the firs t section, it is
conce r ne d with language be twe e n pe ople ( inte r- orgams m), and the re fore
le ar ning to s peak is inte rpr e te d as the individua r s mastery of a be haviour
po te ntia l In this perspective^ language is a fo r m o f inte r action, and it is
le arnt thr ough inte raction; this, e s s e ntially, is what make s it possible for a
cultur e to be tr ans mitte d fr om one ge ne r ation to the next.
In a functional appr oach to language de ve lopme nt the first que s tion to be
as ked is ‘what are the functions tha t language serves in the life o f an in fa nt?1
This might seem self- contradictory, if an infa nt is one who doe s not yet
speak; but the paradox is inte ntional - be fore he has mas te re d any re c­
ognizable form o f his mothe r tongue the child alr e ady has a linguis t ic system,
in the sense that he ca n express ce r tain me anings thr ough the cons is te nt use
of vocal s ounds . T he re are , pe rhaps , four ma in reas ons for putting the
que s tion in this form.

1. We can ask the s ame que s tion at any stage in the life o f th« individua l,
up to and including a dult hood; there have in fact be e n a numbe r o f func ­
tional the orie s o f adult a nd adole s ce nt language .
2. It is much e as ie r to ans we r the que s tion in respect o f a very young
child; the e ar lie r one s tarts the more cle arcut the functions are (whe re as
with an appr oach bas e d on s tructure , the appos ite is the case; it is in
ge ne ral harde r to analys e the s tructure o f c hildr e n’s s peech than that o f
aduJts).
3. We can re as onably assume that the c hild is functionally motivate d; if
language is for the c hild a me ans o f a tt aining social e n d s - t h a t is, e nds which
are impor ta nt to him as a s ocial be ing - we ne e d lo ok no furthe r than this for
the re as ons why he le arns it.
4. A func tiona l appr oach to language , if it include s a de ve lopme ntal
 Language a nd s ocial ma n (P a r t 1) 19

perspective, can throw a gre at de al of light o n the nature of language itself.

Language is as it is be caus e of what it has to do.

T o these we might add a fifth, though this is not so muc h a re as on for

as king the que s tion as an incide nta l bonus for having done so. On e o f the
proble ms in s tudying the language o f a very young child is tha t o f knowing
what is language and what is not. We can ans we r t h a t in a func tiona l conte xt,
by saying that any vocal s ound (a nd any gesture, if the de finition is made to
include ge s ture ) which is inte rpre table by refe rence to a re cognize d function
of language is language —provide d always tha t the r e la tions hip o f s ound to
me aning is re gular a nd cons is te nt. T he pr oduc tion o f a s ound for the purpos e
of practis ing tha t s ound is a me ans o f te am ing language , but is not its e lf an
instance o f language . T he pr o duc tion o f a s ound for the pur po 镳of attracting
atte ntion is language once we have re as on to assert tha t ‘attr acting a tte n­
tion’ is a me a ning th a t fits in with the func tiona l pote ntia l o f language at (his
stage of de ve lopme nt.
Lo o king at the e arly stages o f language de ve lopme nt fr om a func tiona l
vie wpoint, we can follow the process whereby, the c hild gradually le a r ns
how to me a n’ - for this is wha t first- language le ar ning is* If the re is anything
which the chtid can be said to be acquir ing it is a range o f pote ntial which we
could refer to as his ‘me aning pote ntial’ *T his consists in the mas te ry o f a s mall
numbe r o f e le me ntary functions o f language , a nd o f a range of choice s in
me aning within e ach one* T he choice s are ve ry few at first, but they e xpand
rapidJy as the func tiona l pote ntia l o f the system is re inforce d by success: the
s ounds tha t the child make s do in fact achie ve the de s ire d results, at least on a
s ignificant numbe r o f occas ions , a nd this provide s th^ impe tus for taking the
proccss furthe r. As an e x a mple , Nige l, whose language I s tudie d in suc­
cessive six- weekty stages fr om the age of nme mo nths onwards , s tarted
appare ntly with jus t two functions and one o r two me anings in each. At 10i
months , whe n he first had a re cognizable linguis tic system, he could express
a total o f twe lve diffe r e nt me anings ; these were de rive d from four clearly
ide ntifiable functions (the firs t fo ur in the lis t be low) a nd include d, among
othe rs ’ what we might trans late as ‘do that r ight n o w !' ‘1 want my toy bird
dow n’ and ‘nice to see you; s hall we lo ok a t this picture together?* By 161
months , whe n he was on the thr e s hold o f the s e cond phase o f language
de ve lopme nt, the move into the mothe r tongue , he had six functions a nd a
total o f fifty me anings that he c o uldt and re gularly did, express (Ha llida y
1975a).
In s tudying NigeFs progre s s I us e d as the fr ame wor k a set o f seven initial
functions , as follows :

1 Ins tr ume ntal (' I want*): s atis fying mate rial ne e ds

2 Re gulatory ( 4do as I te ll you*): contr olling the be ha viour o f othe rs
3 Inte r actional ("me and you1): ge tting along with othe r pe ople
4 Persona] (*here I come*): ide ntifying a nd e xpre s s ing the self
5 He uris tic (‘te ll me why^): e x plor ing the wor ld ar ound a nd ins ide one
20 T he s ociolinguis tic perspective

6 Imaginative ( ‘le t’s pr e te nd ) cre ating a world o f one ’s own

7 Infor mative (‘I ve got s ome thing to te ll y o u ) co mmunic a ting new
infor mation.

Thes e he adings served as a us eful basis for follow ing the de ve lopme ntal
progress o f an infant whos e e arly s pe e ch s ounds , a lthough still pre linguis tic in
the sense that they were not mode lle d o n the Englis h language , we re used
to conve y these kinds o f inte ntion - to o bta in goods or services that he
re quire d (ins tr ume ntal), to influe nce the be ha viour of those closest to him
(re gulator y), to ma inta in his e motional ties with the m (inte r actional), and so
on. The me anings tha t he can express a t this stage - the numbe r o f diffe re nt
things that he ca n ask for for e xample —are natur a lly very re stricted; but he
has inte r nalize d the fact tha t language serves these purpos es , and it is
s ignificant that for e ach of the m he has one ge ne r alize d expression^ me aning
s imply, ‘I want tha t o r ‘do t h a t ! e tc” whe re the inte r pr e tation is give n by the
s ituation (e .g. ‘I want that s poon’ or ‘go on &ingin镲) as well as a numbe r of
s pecific e xpe ss ions ’ very few at firs t but s oon growing, and s oon be coming
inde pe nde nt o f the pre se nce o f the obje ct o r othe r vis ible sign o f his inte nt.
So by a dopting a functional s tandpoint we can go back to the be ginning o f
the child's language de ve lopme nt, re aching be yond the po int whe re he has
s tarted to mas te r structures , be yond e ve n his first words , if by ‘words ’ we
me an ite ms de rive d fr om the a dult language ; and taking as the foundations
o f language those e arly utte rance s which are no t yet Englis h or Fre nch or
Swahili or Ur d u but which every par e nt re cognize s as be ing me aningful,
quite dis tinct fr om crying a nd s ne e zing and the othe r nonlinguis iic nois e s the
child make s . At this stage, the child's utte rance s cannot re adily be ‘trans-
iated* into the adult language . Jus t as we cannot ade quate ly re pre s e nt the
s ounds he make s by s pe lling the m, e ithe r in the orthogr a phy o f the mothe r
tongue or e ve n in phone tic s cript, be cause the system whic h these s ymbols
impos e is too de taile d and spe cific, so als o we cannot ade quate ly re pres ent
the me anings the child expresses in te rms o f adult gr ammar a n d vocabulary.
The child's e xpe rie nce diffe rs so wide ly fr om tha t o f the adult that there is
only a very partial corre s ponde nce be twe e n his me anings and thos e that the
adult is pre dis pos e d to re cognize. But if his utte rance s are inte rpr e te d in the
light o f par ticular functions , which are re cognizable to the a dult as plaus ible
ways o f us ing language , it be come s pos s ible to br idge the gap be twe e n the m
- a nd in this way to s how why the infa nt's linguis tic system ultimate ly evolve s
and de ve lops into that o f the adult, which is othe rwis e the mos t puzzling
aspect o f the language de ve lopme nt process. By the time he re ache d the age
of IS months Nige i coxild use language e ffe ctive ly in the ins trume ntal,
re gulatory, intractional and pe rs onal functions ^ and was be ginning to use it
for pretend- play (the ‘imaginative ’ function), a nd also heurvstically, for the
purpos e o f e xploring the e nvir onme nt. No w for the first time he launche d
into Englis h, making rapid s trides in vocabular y a nd gr a mma r ; a nd it was
very cle ar fr om a s tudy of his speech that his pr incipal motive for doing so
was the use o f language as a le ar ning device.
 Language a nd s ocial ma n (Part 1) 2】

In orde r for language to be a me ans o f le ar ning, it is e s s e ntial for the child

to be able to e ncode in language , thr ough words and structure s , his e xpe ri­
ence o f processes of the e xte r nal world a nd o f the pe ople and things that
participate in the m.

4 L anguage and social str uctur e

In section 3 we cons ide re d the proce ss o f le a r ning the mothe r tongue fr om a
functional point o f vie w inte rpr e ting it as the progressive mastery o f a
numbe r o f bas ic functions o f language and the build ing up o f a "me aning
pote ntial' in respect o f e ach. He r e we ar e a dopting a s ociotrnguis tic pe rspe c­
tive on language - o r r athe r a pe rs pe ctive which in te rms o f the earlie r
discussion would be inte r- organis m. Language is be ing r e garde d as the
e ncoding of a 'be ha viour pote ntial' into a "me aning pote ntia l’ that is,
as a me ans o f e xpre s s ing wha t the hum a n or ganis m ‘ca n do% in inte raction
with othe r huma n organis ms , by tur ning it into what he "can m e a n1. Wha f
he can me an (the s e mantic s ys te m) is, in tur n, e ncode d into what he "can
say (the te xicogrammatica] system, o r gr a mma r a nd voc abular y); to use
our own folk- linguis tic te r minology , me anings are expressed in wordings .
Wor dings are, finally, re code d into s ounds (it w o uld be nice if we could
say *s oundings ') or s pe llings (the phonologic al a nd or thogr aphic systems).
T e rms like m e aning, w ording and s pe lling are so fa milia r in everyday
spccch that we are har dly aware o f the m as ways o f talking a b o ut language .
But every time we say, to a pupil, o r to a committe e chair man pe rhaps ,
‘I think y o u’ll have to alte r the w or ding , we are ma king s ys te matic as s ump­
tions about language , br inging into play w ha t Pe te r Doughty calls ‘a “ folk
linguis tic” , a “ c o mmon sens e” about the language we live by1 (Doughty
e taL 1972 8),
T his perspective is valuable to the linguis t be cause it affor ds an ins ight into
w hy language is as it is. T he re is no a p rio ri re as on why h um a n language
s hould have take n jus t the e volutiona r y pa th tha t it has take n a nd no othe r ;
our brains c ould have pr oduce d a s ymbolic system o f quite a diffe r e nt kind.
But if we cons ide r what language is re quir e d to d o for us there are ce rtain
functions which it mus t fulfil in all huma n culture s , re gardles s o f diffe re nce s
in the physical and mate r ial e nvir onme nt. These are functions o f a very
general kind.

1. Language has to inte rpre t the whole o f o ur expe rie nce , re ducing the
inde finite ly varie d phe nome na o f the world ar ound us, and als o o f the world
ins ide us, the processes o f o u r own cons cious ne ss , to a manage able numbe r
o f classes o f phe nome na : type s o f processes, e ve nts a nd actions classes of
obje cts , pe ople and ins titutions , and the like .
2. Language has to express ce r tain e le me ntar y logical re lations , like ‘a n d
and ‘or ’ and ‘i f ’ as we ll as those cre ate d by language its e lf s uch as fcnamely\
‘says’ a nd ‘me a ns '
3. Language has to express our par ticipa tion, as spe ake rs , in the speech
22 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

s ituation; the role s we take on ours e lve s and impos e o n othe rs ; our wishes
feelings, attitude s and judge me nts .
4. Language has to do all these things s imultane ous ly, in a way which
re late s what is be ing s aid to the conte xt in which it is be ing s aid, bo th to what
has be e n s aid before and to the Conte x t o f s itua tio n'; in othe r words , it has to
be capable of be ing or ganize d as re le vant discourse , not jus t as words and
sentences in a grammar- book or dictionary.
It is the de mands pos e d by the service o f these functions which have
moulde d the shape of Language and fixe d the course of its e volution. T he s e
functions are b uilt into the s e mantic system o f language , and xhey for m the
basis o f the gr ammatical organizatjon, since the tas k o f grammar is to e ncode
the me anings de r iving from these various functions into ar ticulate d s truc­
tures. Not only are these functions s erved by all language s , a t least in the ir
adult for m; they have als o de te r mine d the way huma n language has e volve d.
So whe n we s tudy the language de ve lopme nt o f young childr e n, we are
really inve s tigating tw o que s tions at once . T he first conce rns the language
they inve nt for thems elves , on the bas is o f the set of e le me ntar y uses or
functions o f language which reflect the de ve lopme ntal ne e ds , pote ntialitie s
and achie ve me nts o f the infant —ins tr ume ntal, re gulatory a nd so on. The
s econd conce rns the ir tr ans ition to the aduJt language^ a language which is
still functional in its origins but whe re the conce pt o f "function1 has unde r ­
gone a s ignificant change : it is no longe r s imply s ynonymous with — use’ but
has be come much more abs tract, a k in d o f ^me tafunction1thr ough which all
the innume r able concrete uses o f language in which the a dult engages are
given s ymbolic e xpre s s ion in a s ys te matic and finite form. T o w ha ie x te ni the
individual child traces the e volutionary pa th in m o v in£fr o m one to the othe r
is immate r ial; it appe ars tha t at a ce rtain point he abandons k and takes a
le ap dire ctly into the adult system. Be that as it may, he has to make the
tr ans ition, and in doing so he carves out for hims e lf a r oute that reflects the
particular circums tance s o f his o w n individual his tory and e xpe rie nce .
Ge offr e y T hor nton expresses this very we ll whe n he says that the language
which each child learns
is a unique inheritance, [t i&an inheritance because he is endowed, as a human
being» with the capacity lo learn language merely by growing up in an environ­
ment in which language is being used around him. It is unique, because .. , no
two people occupy tdeniicat places in an environment where language learning
is ta king place » a nd this mus t m e a n that (he language le a r nt is unique to the
individua l. (Do u g h t y et at. 1972, 48).

T his takes us back to the perspective outline d in s e ction 2. Biologically we

are all alike* in so far as the language - le arning capacity is conce rne d; we have
this ability, as a species, jus t as we have the ability to s tand upr ight a nd walk,
a n d it is quite inde pe nde nt o f the us ual meas ure s o f ‘inte llige nce 1 in w ha t­
ever form. Ecologically, on the othe r ha nd, e ach one o f us is uniq ue since
the e nvir onme ntal patte rn is ne ve r exactly r e pe ate d, a nd one individual’s
e xpe rience is never the s ame as a nothe r ’s.
 Language a nd s ocial ma n (Par t 1) 23

Howe ve r, the unique ne s s o f (he individua l in te rms o f his pe rs onal

expe rience, mus t be qualifie d by reference to the culture . Ou r e nvir onme nt
is s hape d by the culture , a nd the conditions unde r which we learn language
are largely cultur ally de te r mine d. T his point is s ignificant at two levels, one
of which is very obvious the othe r less so. lt is obvious ly true in the sense
that a child le arns the language he he ars ar ound h im ; if he is growing up in an
Englis h- s pe aking society, he learns Englis h. This is a matte r o f the linguis tic
e nvironme nt, which is its e lf part o f the cultur e , but in a special sense.
Mor e ove r he learns that diale ctal varie ty o f Englis h which be longs to his
particular s ociore gional s ubc ultur e : working- class Lo ndo n, urban middle-
class Northe rn* rural Dor s e t and so on. (He may of course le ar n more than
one diale ct, or more than one language , if the cultur e is one in which
such linguis tic dive rs ity is the nor m.) lt is e qually true , but muc h le s s obvious , in
anothe r sense: name ly that the culture s hape s o ur be haviour patte rns , and a
great de al o f o ur be ha viour is me diate d thr ough language . T he child learns
his mothe r tongue in the conte xt of be haviour al s e ttings where the nor ms o f
the culture are acte d out a nd e nunciate d for h im t s e ttings o f pare ntal c ontr ol
ins truction, pe rs onal inte raction a nd the like ; and, re ciprocally, he is "social­
ized* into the value systems and be haviour patte rns o f the cultur e through
the use o f language at the same time as he is le a r ning it.
We can now see the relevance of this to linguis tic the orie s o f e ducational
failur e which were re fe rre d to br ie fly in the last s ection. T he re has be e n
much dis cus s ion o f e duc ability late ly, and v a r io u s the orie s have be e n put
forward. One s chool o f thought has conce ntr ate d o n the effect o f the child's
linguis tic e nvir onme nt - name ly, the particular form o f language he has
grown up to s pe ak. In practice , since e duca tional failure is us ually as s ociate d
with the urban lowe r wor king cJass’ this me ans the par ticular s ociore gional
diale ct; and we find two ve rs ions o f the la n g ua g e failur e ' the or y here,
s ome time s known as the ‘de ficit the or y’ and the ‘diffe re nce the or y . Acc or d­
ing to the de ficit the ory, the whole diale ct is s imply de fe ctive ; it lacks
some essential e le me nts - it is de ficie nt, pe rhaps , in s ounds or words , or
structures. Now this is not me re ly nons e ns e ; it is dange r ous nons e ns e .
Un£ortunaie ly it has rare ly be e n e xplicitly de nie d; pr obably be caus e as the
Ame r ican e ducator Joan. Bar a tz p ut it ‘linguis ts . . . cons ide r such a vie w o f
language so abs urd as to make the m feel (hat nobody could pos s ibly be lie ve
it a nd the re fore to re fute it w o uld be a gre at waste o f time 1 (Willia ms 1970a,
13), T he re is no such thing as a de ficie nt social diale ct. But, on the othe r
hand, if a le ache r be lie ve s that there ist and tha t some or all o f his pupils
s peak one, the n, as Fre de rick WiUiams has very convincingly s hown in his
inve s tigations in Ame r ican schools, he the re by pre dis pos e s the childre n to
linguis tic failure . This is known as the ^stereotype hypothe s is ,: childre n, no
Jess than adults , will come to be have like the s te re otype to which the y are
cons igne d (WiUiams 1970a, ch. 18).
T his the n le ads us into the ‘diffe r e nce ve rs ion o f the the ory, according to
which the proble m is not tha t the child's s peech is de ficie nt but that it is
diffe re nt - diffe r e nt, in implication, fr om s ome re ce ive d s tandard o r norm.
24 T he s ociolinguis tic perspective

This wo uld obvious ly be impor tant if it me ant that the child did not unde r ­
s tand the language in which he was be ing taught (as happe ns w ith many
immigr ant childr e n). B u t for the native Englis h- s pe aking child, this is not the
proble m. Whe re ve r he come s from, and whate ve r s e ction o f society he
come s from, the speech diffe re nce s are re lative ly s light and s upe rficial, and
in any case he has he ard the te ache r's language fre que ntly on te levision and
elsewhere, so that he ne ve r has more than very te mporary difficulty in
unde r s tanding it and in fact is us ually rathe r compe te nt at imita ting it - an
activity howe ve r, which he te nds to cons ide r more appr opriate to the
playground than to the clas s room. So the diffe re nce the ory resolves its e lf
into a que s tion of pre judice : if the c hild fails as a result o f diffe re nce s
be twe e n his language and that o f the s chool, it is not because there are
difficultie s o f unde r s tanding but because the c hild’s varie ty o f Englis h
carrie s a social s tigma: it is re garde d l>y society as infe rior. I f 4society' here
include s the te acher, the child is, effe ctive ly co nde mne d to failure from the
start.
T o that e xte nt, the n, the diffe re nce the ory, unlike the de ficit the or y is at
least partially true: there are pre judice s agains t ce rtain varie tie s o f Englis h,
and they are share d by s ome teachers. B u t they are by no me ans share d by all
teachers; and it is difficult to l>elieve that this factor by itse lf could t>e
s ufficient e x pla na tion o f the full e xte nt of e ducational failur e , e s pe cially
since childre n have a gre at capacity for adaptation - if one for m o f be haviour
does not pay o ff the y will us ually s witch to anothe r, and they are quite
capable o f doing so where Language is concerned- Mor e ove r the pre judice s
are ge tting less, whe re as the ge ne r al vie w is that e ducational failure is
incre as ing.
We re turn to this dis cus s ion in chapte r 5 be low, w ith re fe re nce to the
wor k of Bas il Be rns te in. Ed uc a tio na l failur e is re ally a social proble m,
not a linguis tic one ; but it has a linguis tic aspect, which we can be gin to
unde r s tand if we cons ide r the cultur al e nvir o nme nt in the second o f the two
senses me ntione d above . It is not the linguis tic e nvironme nt^ in the sense of
which language o r diale ct the c hild le ar ns to s pe ak, tha t matte rs so muc h as
the cultur al or s ubcultur al e nvir onme nt as this is e mbodie d in and trans ­
mitte d through the language . In othe r wor ds the la ng ua g e difference* may
be s ignificant, but if so it is a diffe re nce of function rathe r than of form.
It is this fundame nta l ins ight which lies be hind Profe s s or Be r ns te in’s
the ore tical and e mpir ical work in the fie ld o f language a nd society; toge the r
with a fur the r ins ight, name ly that what de te r mine s the actual cultural-
linguis tic configur ation is, e s s e ntially the social structure, the system of
s ocial re lations , in the family and othe r key s ocial groups , which is char ac­
teristic of the par ticular s ubcultur e . Be r ns te in (1971» 122) writes:

A numbe r of fas hions o f s pe aking, fr ame s o f cons is te ncy, are pos s ible in any
given language and .. . these fashions of speaking, linguistic forms or codes, are
the ms e lve s a func iio n o f the for m s ocial r e lations take . Ac c o r d ing to this vie w,
the form of the social relation or, more generally the social struciure generates
 Language and social ma n (Part 1) 25

distinct linguistic forms or codes and these codes ^ss^ntialiy transmit the culture
and so constrain behaviour. [ His italics.]

If we acce pt tha t as the Ame r ica n s ociological Linguist Willia m Stewart

expressed it ‘so much o f huma n be ha vio ur is s ocially conditione d r athe r than
ge ne tically de te r mine d it is no t difficult to s uppos e an intimate conne ction
be twe e n language on the one hand and mode s o f thought and be ha viour on
the othe r.
T his view is associated first and for e mos t w ith the work o f the gre at
Ame r ican linguis t Be n ja m in Le e Whor f, who wrote *A n acce pte d patte rn of
us ing words is ofte n prior to ce rtain line s o f thinking and mode s of
be ha vio ur / Wh o r f e mphas ize d that it is no t s o much in 'spe cial uses of
language" (te chnical terms* political dis cours e etc.) as "in its cons tant ways of
arranging data a nd its mos t ordinar y e ve ryday analys is of phe nome na (hat
we ne e d to re cognize the influe nee [ language ] has on othe r activities , c ul­
tural and pe r s onal’ (1 9 5 6 134- 5). Be r ns te in (1 9 7 1 ,1 2 3 ) p o im s o u t that, in
Wh o r f’s thinJcing, ‘the lin k be twe e n language , culture and habitual thought
is no t me diate d thr ough the social s tructure whe re as his own the ory

places the emphasis on changes in the social structure as major factors in shaping
o r c h a r d in g a give n cultur e th r o ugh the ir e ffe ct o n the cons e que nce s o f fas hions
of speaking. It shares with Whorf the controlling influence on experience
ascribed to ‘frames of consistency’ involved in fashions of speaking. It differs
[from] Whorf by asserting th^l, in ihe context of a common language in the sense
o f a ge ne ral codc> the re will arise dis tinct linguis tic for ms , fa s hions o f s pe aking,
which induce in their speakers different ways of relating to objects and persons.

Be rns te in has inve s tigate d Aow this conne ct ion is ma de t a nd suggests that it
is thr ough linguis tic code s , o r fas hions o f s pe aking, which arise as a c on­
sequence o f the social s tructure and the type s o f social r e lation as s ociate d
with it. As Mary Dougla s put it ‘T he c ontr ol [ of thought] is not in the speech
forms but in the set o f huma n re tations which ge ne rate thought a nd s pe e ch1
(1 9 7 2 ,3 1 2 ).
Wha t are these Jinguis ticcode s , or fas hions ofs pe a king?T he y re late , essen­
tially^ to a functional inte r pr e ta tion o f language . It is not the words a nd the
sentence s tructure s - s till 1e ss the pr onunc iation o r 'acce nt' - w hic tima ke the
difference be twe e n one type o f code a nd anothe r ; it is the re lative e mphas is
placed on the diffe re nt func tions o f language or, to put it more accurate ly,
the kinds o f me aning t hat are typically as s ociate d w ith the m. T he ‘fas hions o f
s pe aking are s ocios e mantic in na tur e ; the y are patte rns o f me aning that
e me rge more or less s trongly, in particular conte xts , e s pe cially thos e re lating
to the s ocialization o f the c hild in the family. He nce a lthough e ach c hild’s
language - le arning e nvir onme nt is unique , he als o s hares ce rtain co mmon
features with othe r childr e n o f a sim ilar social backgr ound; not me re ly in the
s upe rficial sense thai the mate r ial e nvir onme nts may we ll be alike - in fact
they may not - but in the de e pe r sense that the for ms o f social r e lation and
the role systems s ur r ounding him have the ir effect on the kind o f choice s in
 26 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

me a ning which will be highiighte d and give n promine nce in diffe re nt types
o f s ituation. Pe te r Doughty comme nts : ‘the te rms e laborate d and restricted
refer to characte ris tic ways of us ing language to inte ract with ocher huma n
be ings ; the y do not suggest tha t ihe re are two kinds o f “ me a ning p o te n tia r ”
(Do ug hty et al. 1972, 104—5)*
T his de pe nde nce on social s tructure is not me r e ly unavoidable , it is
essential to the child's de ve lopme nt; he can de ve lop only as s oc ial ma n and
the re fore his e xpe rie nce mus t be s hape d in ways which make him a me mbe r
o f society and his par ticular section of it. It be come s restrictive only where
the social structure orie nts the ch ild's thinking aw ay from the mode s of
experience that the s chool re quire s . T o quote Be r ns te in again, "the diffe re nt
focusi ng o f e xpe rience *.. creates a m a jo r pr o ble m o f e ducability only where
the schooJ produce s dis continuity be twe e n its s ymbolic orde rs a nd those o f
the c hild’ 1971 183—4). In othe r words, the processes o f be coming e d u ­
cate d re quire that the child's me a ning pote ntia l s hould have de ve lope d
along ce rtain line s in ce r tain type s of conte xt, e s pe cially in re lation to the
e xplor ation of the e nvir onme nt and o f his own pa r t in it. T o what e xte nt this
r e quir e me nt is inhe r e nt in the ve ry conce pt o f e ducation, and to what e xte nt
it is merely a fe ature o f e ducation as it is at pre s e nt organize d in Br itain and
othe r highly ur banize d societies, we do not know ; but as things are, ce rtain
ways o f or ganizing e xpe rie nce thr ough language , and o f par ticipating and
inte racting with pe ople and things , are necessary to success in school. The
child who is not pre dis pos e d to this type of ve rbal e x plor ation in this type of
e xpe rie ntial and inte rpe rs onal conte xt *is not at home in the e ducational
wor ld as Be r ns te in puts it. Whe the r a child is so pre dis pos e d or not turns
out not to be any innate prope r ty o f the c hild as an individuaL an inhe r e nt
limitatio n on his me nta l powers, as us e d to be ge ne rally as s ume d; it is me re ly
the result o f a mis match be twe e n his own s ymbolic orde rs o f me aning and
those of the schooJ, a mis match that re sults from the diffe r e nt patte rns o f
s ocialization tha t characte rize diffe re nt sections o f society, o r s ubculture s ,
and which are in turn a function o f the unde r lying social re lations in the
family and elsewhere. Mary Dougla s says o f Be r ns te in that he asks 'what
s tructuring in society it s e lf calls fo r its o*wn appr opr iate s tructure s o f s pe e chr
(19 72, 5); and she goes on to add ‘A c o m m o n s peech for m trans mits much
more than words ; it trans mits a hidde n baggage o f s hare d as s umptions ’ a
'collective cons cious ne ss that cons titute s the s ocial bond\
It is all too easy to be aware o f s ubcultur al diffe re nce s in s peech forms ,
because we are all sensitive to diffe re nce s o f diale ct and acce nt. U n fo r ­
tunate ly this is precisely whe re we go wr ong, be cause diffe re nce s o f diale ct
and accent are in the ms e lve s ir re le vant; in Bernstein^s words, ‘T he re is
nothing, but n o t h in g in the diale ct as s uch which pre ve nts a c hild fr om
inte r nalizing and le ar ning to use unive rs atis tic me anings , (19 71, 199), a nd
diale ct is a proble m only if it is m ade a pr oble m ar tificially by the pr e judice
and ignorance o f othe rs . It is much harde r to be come aware o f the s ig nific ant
differences , which are mas ke d by dialcctal var iation (a nd which by n o me ans
always corre s pond to diale ct dis tinctions ), and which d o not appe ar in the
 Language and s ocial ma n (Par t 1} 27

obvious for m o f diffe re nce s in vocabular y o r gr ammatical s tructure . We are

still far fr om be ing able to give a compre he ns ive or s ys te matic account o f the
linguis tic re alizations of Be r ns te in’s code s or of the ways in which Language
ope rate s in the trans mis s ion o f cultur e . But the perspective is tha t o f lan­
guage a nd social man, a nd the func tiona l inve s tigation o f language and
language de ve lopme nt provide s the basis for unde r s tanding.
In essence, what seems to ha ppe n is this . T he c hild firs t cons tructs a
language in the form of a range o f me anings that re late dire ctly to ce rtain of
his basic ne e ds . As time goes on, the me anings be come more comple x, and
he re places this by a s ymbolic s ys te m - a s e mantic system with s tructural
r e alizations - bas e d o n the language he hears ar ound him ; this is what we call
this "mothe r tongue*. Since this is le ar nt, and has in fact e volve d, in the
service o f the same bas ic functions , it is, essentially^ a func tiona l s ys te m; but
its functionality is now built in at a very abs tract level. T his is what was
referred to at the be ginning o f this s ection, whe n I s aid that the adult
linguis tic system has, in effect, the four ge ne r alize d functional c o m p o n e n t
or ‘me tafunctioris ’ e x pe r ie ntial, logical, inte rpe r s onal a nd te xtual. These
for m the basis for the or ga nization o f me aning whe n the child move s from
his or iginal protolanguage into language prope r .
But he doe s not aba ndon the or igina l concre te functional e le me nts o f the
system as he inve nte d it. These still de fine the purpos e s for which language is
us e d; and out o f the m e volve the social conte xts a n d s ituation types that
make up the patte rns o f use o f language in daily life - including those
contexts that Be rns te in has s hown to be critical in the s ocialization process.
He re in Jies the basis o f the s ignificant s ubcultur al var iation that we have
be e n looking at. In w hich par ticular conte xts o f use will the child br ing to
bear w hich portions o f the functional resources o f the s ys te m? Se e n from a
linguis tic point of view> the diffe re nt *codes as Be rns te in calls the m, are
diffe r e nt strategies o f language use* All h um a n be ings put language to
ce rtain types o f use, and all o f the m le arn a Hnguis iic system which has
evolved in that conte xt; but what aspects of the s yste m are typically
de ploye d a nd e mphas ize d in one type of use or anothe r is to a s ignificant
e xte nt de te r mine d by the cultur e - by the systems o f social re lations in which
the child grows up, including the role s he hims e lf learns to re cognize and to
adopt. All childre n have access t o the me a ning pote ntial of the s ys te m; but
they may diffe r, because social gr oups diffe r, in the ir inte r pr e ta tion o f what
the s ituation de mands .

5 Language and situation

Childr e n grow up, a nd the ir language grows up with the m. By the age of two
and a half o r e ve n e arlie r, the c hild has mas te re d the a dult language ;
the fr ame wor k is all the re . He will s pe nd the rest o f his c hild ho o d- the rest o f
his. life , even - mas te r ing the a dult language .
Language , as we have stressed,, is a pote ntial: it is what the s pe ake r can do.
Wh a t a person can do in the linguis tic sense, tha t is what he ca n do as
28 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

s pe ake r/he are r, is e quivale nt lo w h a t he ‘can mean*; hence the de s cription o f

language as a ‘me a ning po te n tia l’
T o describe language as a pote ntia l doe s not me an we are not inte re s te d in
the actual, in what the s pe ake r doe s . But in orde r to make sense o f what he
doe s we have to know what he can do. This is true whate ve r our par ticular
angle on language , whe the r we are looking at it as be haviour, or as know­
ledge (Choms ky ’s 4compe te ne e 1), or as art: what the actual sentences and
words that cons titute our dire ct e xpe rie nce o f language , de rive s its s ig­
nificance fr om c o uld be . But it is in the s ocial pe rs pe ctive that we are
best able to e x plain what is , because we can pay atte ntion to s ituations of
language use taking account o f the nonliaguis tic factors which serve as the
contr olling e nvir onme nt It is at least the ore tically possible to look at the
‘actual’ in is olation fr om the s ocial conte xt (so- called ‘the or ie s o f pe r­
for mance * but it has not yet be e n s hown to be very fr uitful.
Whe n we come lo e x amine the a dult language in its conte xts o f use, we at
once run up against the difficulty that the one thing we cannot specify is the
*use> o f any give n utte rance . Nor can we e nume r ate the total set o f possible
uses for language as a whole . We c a nno t dr aw u p a ge ne ral list, s e tting o ut the
adult’s uses of language in the way tha t we were a b k to do for the de ve lop­
me ntal functions in the Language of the very s mall child. O r rathe r - which
amounts to the s ame thing - we could dr aw up a hundr e d a nd one such lists,
and the re would be no me ans o f pre fe rring one list ove r anothe r . T he n whe n
we came to cons ide r actual ins tance s we s hould have to re cognize that in any
particular utte rance the s pe ake r was in fact using language in a numbe r o f
diffe re nt ways, for a varie ty of diffe r e nt purpos e s , aU at the s ame time . T he
use o f language is no t a s imple conce pt.
Ne ve rthe le s s it is a very he lpful o n «T without which we c a nno t e xplain
e ithe r the var iation we find within a language - the diffe r e nt styles, levels of
formality and so o n —o r the natur e of language itself. T he latte r is outs ide our
scope here, although we re fe rre d in the pre ce ding s e ction to the inhe re ntly
functional or ganization of the Linguistic system. But the for me r is fun­
dame ntal to any cons ide ration o f language in an e duc ationa l conte xt. The
ability to contr ol the varie ties o f one 's language that are appr opr iate to
diffe r e nt uses is one o f the corne rs tone s of linguis tic success, not least for the
s chool pupil. (F o r an e xce lle nt dis cus s ion o f 'diffe re nce s according to use*,
see Doughty et al. 1972 ch. 11, 4Dive rs ity in wr itte n Englis h’ by Jo h n
Pearce,)
T he basic conce pt here is tha t o f ‘conte xt o f situation\ originally s uggested
by Malinows ki (1 9 2 3 ) and s ubs e que ntly e la bor ate d by Fir ih ⼁丨 n his 1950
pa pe r ‘Pe rs onality a n d language in s ocie ty’ (s ee Fir th 1957, ch. 14), Es s e n­
tially what this implie s is tha t language come s to life only whe n func tioning in
some e nvironme nt. We do not expe rie nce language in Is olation - if we did
we would not re cognize it as language - but always in r e lation to a sce nario,
s ome backgr ound o f pe rs ons and actions a nd e ve nts fr om which the things
which are said de rive the ir me a ning. T his is re fe rre d to as the ‘s ituatiorT ’ so
language is said to func tion in ‘conte xts o f s ituation* a nd any account o f
 Language a nd s ocial ma n (Par t 1) 29

Janguage which fails to build in the s ituation as an e s s e ntial ingr e die nt is

like ly to be artificial a nd unre warding.
It is impor ta nt to qua lify the notion o f 's ituation* by adding the word
"re le vant/ The ‘conte x t o f s ituat ion1 doe s not re fe r to all the bits a nd pieces
o f the mate rial e nvir onme nt s uch as might appe ar if we had an audio and
vide o re cording o f a speech e ve nt with all the sights a nd s ounds s urr ounding
the utte rance s . It refers to those fe ature s which ar e re le vant to the speech
that is taking pJace. Such fe ature s may be very concre te and imme diate , as
they te nd to be with young childre n whos e re marks ofte n be ar a dire ct
pragmatic r e lation to the e nvir onme nt, e ,g,s om e m ore ! *1 wanl s ome more of
what l fve jus t be e n e a ting / But the y may be quite abs tract and re mote , as in
a te chnical discussion a mong expe rts , whe re the ‘s itua tion’ w o uld include
such things as the particular pr oble m the y we re trying to solve and the ir ow n
tr aining a nd e xpe rie nce , while the imme diate s urroundings o f obje cts and
e ve nts would pr obably conta in nothing o f re le vance at all. Eve n whe re the
speech doe s re late to the imme diate e nvir onme nt, it is like ly that only
ce rtain fe ature s o f it will be re le vant; for e x a mple , is it (he presence of a
particular individual that matte rs , or is it a ce rtain role r e lations hip, no
matte r who is occupying the roles in que s tion? If Jo h n says I love y o u, it
pre s umably doe s matte r tha t it was s aid to Mar y a nd not Ja ne ; but if he says
Can y ou p u t up a pre s cription fo r m e ?, what is re le vant in that s ituation is the
role o f dis pe ns ing che mis t, a nd not the ide ntity of the individual who
happe ns to be occupying it at that particular time ^n d place.
In genera), the ability to use language in abs tract a nd indire ct conte xts of
s ituation is what dis tinguis he s the speech o f adults fr om that o f childr e n.
Le ar ning language consists in part in le ar ning to free it from the cons traints
of the imme diate e nvir onme nt. ThLs proce ss be gins very early in life , whe n
the child first learns to ask for things that are not vis ible and to re call obje cts
and e ve nts which he has obs e rve d earlier* But it is a gradual process, which
takes place in diffe re nt ways with diffe re nt childr e n; this is one o f the
variable s which Be rns te in has fo u n d to be s ignificant - which types of
s ituation serve as the gateway to more abs tract 眛 nd ge ne r alize d conte xtual
me anings . As he says ‘ce rtain groups o f childr e n, thr ough the for ms o f the ir
s ocialization, are or ie nte d towar ds re ce iving a nd offe r ing unive rs alis dc
me anings in ce rtain contex ts* 196). T his in itse lf is not impor ta nt; but
it be come s impor ta nt if the re are ce rtain ty pes of s ituation which play a
ce ntral par t in the c h ild ’s total de ve lopme nt, since these are the one s where
he will ne e d to use language in ways that are least de pe nde nt on the here and
now.
T his le ads us to the notion o f a s ituation type . Looking at how pe ople
actually use language in daily life, we find that the appar e ntly infinite
numbe r o f diffe r e nt pos s ible s ituations re presents in re ality a very much
s malle r numbe r of ge ne ral ly pes o f s ituat ion which we can de scribe in such
te rms as ‘playe rs ins tr ucting novice in a game\ *mot he r r e ading be dtime
story to child\ ‘cus tome r orde ring goods ove r the telephone\ ‘te ache r
guiding pupils ’ dis cus s ion o f a po e m ’ and the like . No t all these s ituation
30 T he s ociolinguis tic pe rspective

types are e qua lly inte re s ting, and s ome are obvious ly ve ry trivial; but in the
last resort the importance o f any abstract cate gory of this kind de pe nds on
what we are going to make o f ii, and the s ignificance o f the notion o f ^context
o f s itua tion’ for the pre s e nt dis cus s ion is tha t s ome s ituation type s play a
crucial role in the c hild’s move into the a dult language . For e x ample if a
mothe r or fathe r is playing with a child with s ome cons tructional toy such as
a set of building bricks , this type o f s ituation is like ly to contain some
re marks o f guidance and e x planation, with utte rance s like f d o n ft think thai
one w ill go on there; it’s too w ide . T he conte xt o f s ituation for this utte rance is
one in which the child is gaining ins tr uction re lating to his handling of
obje cts , and aJthough any one ins tance is not by itse lf going to make much
diffe re nce , an accumulation o f e xpe riences o f this kind may be highly
s ignificant. And if it re gularly happe ns tha t the re marks re late not j ust to this
partic ular towe r that is be ing buiEt w t h these partic ular bricks , but to tower-
building in ge ne ral - in othe r words , if the conte xt o f s ituation is not limite d
to the acrual physical s ur r oundings , but e xtends to more ge ne ral and ks s
imme diate e nvir onme nts as would be implie d by a r e mar k such as (he
s m alle r one s hav e to go at the - the n language is now serving a primary
function in this aspect o f the c hild’s de ve lopme nt. He nce he will have a
s trong sense o ith is use of language , o f language as a me ans o f le arn ing about
the physical e nvir onme nt and about his own ability to inte ract with it and
contr ol it.
T he lypes of s ituation which s eem to be mos t ce ntral to the c hild’s
s ocializaiion have be e n ide ntifie d by Be r ns te in in the mos t ge ne ral terms.
He refers to ih e m a s ‘cr itical s ocializing conte x ts ' us ing ‘conte x t in the sense
of a ge ne ralize d s ituation type* He ide ntifie s the ^re gulative ' conte xt, ‘where
the child is made aware of the rules o f the mor a l or de r , and the ir various
backings '; the ‘ins tructional’ context^ "where the child learns about the
obje ctive nature o f obje cts a nd pe rs ons , and acquire s s kills of various kinds ’
the ima gina tive or innovating' conte xts , ‘whe re ttie c hild is e ncour age d to
e xpe rime nt and re- ere are his world on his own te rms a nd the 'inte r ­
pe r s onal' conte xt, 'whe re the child is made aware o f affe ctive stales - his
own. and others" (Be r ns te in 1971, 18L, i9 S ), Thes e turn out to be alre ady
anticipate d in the de ve lopme ntal functions thr ough which the child has first
s tarted to build up a linguis tic system o f his own: the ins tr ume ntal, r e gu­
latory and so o n de scribe d in se ction 3 above . For e xample , those types o f
s ituation which involve e x pla nation and ins tr uction, Be r ns te in's 'ins tr uc­
tional c o nte x t' typically pick up the de ve lopme ntal thre ad tha t first
appe are d m ihe form o f a ‘he uris tic’ func tion the child's e arly use o f
language to e xplore his e nvir onme nt. The y are the re fore critical als o in the
child's \ tam ing o f language , since it is thr ough us ing language in s ituations o f
these types that he builds on a nd e xpands his me a ning pote ntial.
T his is whe re the notions o f conte xt of s ituation, and s ituation type,
be come impor ta nt for the s chool. T he s chool re quire s that the child s hould
be able to use language in ce r tain ways: first of all> mos t obvious ly, that he
s hould be able to use language to le arn. The te ache r ope rate s in conte xts o f
 Language a nd social man (Par t 1) 31

s ituation whe re it s imply has to be take n for gr ante d that for every child, by
the time he arrives in school* language is a me ans o f le ar ning; and this is an
as s umption that is bas ic to the e duca tional process. Le ss obvious ’ but
pe rhaps no less fundame ntaU is the as s umption tha t language is a me ans of
pe rsonal e xpre s s ion and participation: that the child is at home , lin­
guis tically, in inte rpe r s onal conte xts , whe re his e arly use o f language to
inte ract with tho^e e motionally im po r ta nt to h im , and t o express and
de ve lop Jiis own unique ne s s as an individual (the inte r actional and pe rs onal
functions ), has in the s ame way be e n ta ken u p and e xte nde d into ne w realms
o f me a ning. No d o u b t both these as s umptions are true , as they s tand: every
nor mal c hild has mas te re d the use of language both for e nte ring into pe r­
sonal re lations hips a nd for e x plor ing his e nvironme nt. But the k in d o f
me anings that one child expe cts to be as s ociate d w ith any par ticular conte xt
o f s ituation may diffe r wide ly fr om what is e xpe cte d by anothe r . He re
we are back to Be r ns te in’s code s a ga in, which we have now appr oache d
fr om anothe r angle , s e e ing the m as diffe re nce s in the me aning pote ntial
which may be typically as s ociate d w ith give n s ituation types. As we have
seen, these diffe re nce s have the ir origin in the social s tructure . In Ruqaiya
Has an's words , *the “code ” is de fine d by refe rence to its s e mantic pr ope r tie s 1
and lthe s e mantic prope r tie s of the code s can be pre dicte d fr om the e le me nts
o f social s tructure which, in fact, give rise to the m, (Be rs te in 1973,
258).
Now the very young chiJd, in his first ve nture s with language keeps the
functions o f language fairly de a r ly apart; whe n he s pe aks , he is doing only
one thing at a time - as king for s ome obje ct, r e s ponding to a gre e ting,
expressing interest o r whate ve r it is. Whe n he starts le a r ning his mothe r
tongue , howe ve r, the contexts o f s ituation in which he uses it are alre ady
comple x a nd many s ide d, with a numbe r o f thre ads o f me aning r unning
s imultane ous ly. To vary the me t aphor , we could say tha t all s peech othe r
than the protolanguage o f infancy is polyphonic: diffe re nt me lodie s are ke pt
going side by side, a nd e ach e ie nie nt in the sentence is Like a chor d which
contr ibute s s ome thing to all of the m. T his is pe r haps the mos t s triking
characteris tic o f huma n language a nd one which dis tinguis he s it fr om all
othe r s ymbolic co mmunic a tio n systems.

6 Register
T his last point is a r e fle ction o f the conte xts o f s ituation in which language is
used and the ways in which one type o f s ituation may diffe r fr om anothe r.
Types o f linguis tic s ituation diffe r fr om one a nothe r br oa dly s pe aking, in
three respects: first, what is actually taking place ; s e condly, w ho is taking
part; and thir dly, what part the language is playing. These three variable s ,
taken toge the r de te r mine the range within which me anings are selected and
the forms which are us e d fo r the ir e xpre s s ion. In othe r words , they de te r ­
mine the ‘re gis te r . (Se e table I p. 35.)
T he notion o f re gis te r is at once very s imple a nd very powe r ful. It refers to
32 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

the fact that the language we s peak o r write varie s accor ding to the type o f
s ituation. This in its e lf is no more than s tating the obvious . Wha t the theory
o f register do^s is to atte mpt to uncove r the ge ne ral principle s which govern
this var iation, so that we can be gin to unde r s tand w hat s ituational factors
de te rmine w hat linguis tic fe ature s . It is a funda me nta l prope rty of all la n­
guages tha t they dis play var iation accor ding to us e ; but s urpris ingly little is
yet known about the natur e of the variation involve d, large ly be cause o f the
difficulty o f ide ntifying the contr olling factors.
A n e xce ile nt e xample o f register var iation (a nd o f how to inve s tigate and
describe it) is pr ovide d by Je a n Lire in a pa p e r e nt ille d ‘Le xical de ns ity and
register diffe r e ntiation' (1 9 7 1), Here Je an Ure shows that, at least in Eng-
lish, the lexical de ns ity o f a text, which me ans the pr opor tion o f lexical items
(conte nt words ) to words as a whole , is a function first o f the me dium {that is,
whe the r it is s poke n o r writte n - wr itte n language has a highe r lexical density
than speech) and, within th a t of the s ocial func tion (pr agmatic language , or
la nguage o f a c tion’’ has the lowe s t lexical de ns ity o f all). T his is probably
true of all languages ; but whe the r it is or not’ it is a basic fact about Englis h
and a very good illus tr ation o f the r e lation be twe e n (he actual and the
pote ntial that we referred to at the be ginning o f this s ection. We could say,
following De ll Hyme s , tha t it is part o f the spe ake r's 'communicative c o m ­
petence* that he knows how to dis tr ibute lexical ite ms in a text according to
diffe re nt kinds o f language use; but the re is really no ne e d to introduce here
the artificial conce pt of Compe te nc e 1, or ‘what the s pe ake r knows ’ which
me re ly adds an extra level o f ps ychological inte r pr e tation to what can be
e xplaine d more s imply in dire ct s ociolinguis tic o r functional te rms .
It is easy to be mis le d here by pos ing the que s tion the wr ong way’ as a
numbe r o f writers o n the s ubje ct have done . T he y have as ke d, in effect,
‘what features o f language are de te r mine d by re gis te r? and the n come up
with instances o f near- synonymy whe re one word diffe rs fr om anothe r in
level of formality, rhe toric or te chnicality, like "chips 1 and T re nch- frie d
potatoe s or 'de ciduous d e niit io n ’ and ‘m ilk teeth". But these are c o m ­
monplace s which lie at the fringe o f re gis te r var iation, and which in the m­
selves would hardly ne e d any linguis tic or othe r kind o f 'the ory' to e xplain
the m. As ke d in this way, the que s tion can le ad only to trivial answers; but i(
is the wrong que s tion to ask. A ll language functions in conte xts o f s ituation,
and is re latable to those contexts . T he que s tion is not what pe culiaritie s o f
vocabulary, or gr ammar o r pr onuncia tion, can be dire ctly accounte d for by
reference to the s ituation. It is w hich kinds of s ituational factor de te r mine
w hich kinds o f s e le ction in the linguis tic system. T he notion o f register is thus
a for m o f pr e diction; given that we know the s ituation, the social conte xt of
language use, we can pre dict a gre at de al abous the language that will occur,
with re as onable probability o f be ing right. T he impor ta nt the ore tical que s ­
tion the n is: what e xactly do we ne e d to know about the social conte xt in
or de r to make s uch pre dictions ?
Le t us make this more concre te . If I am talking about garde ning, 1 may be
more like ly to use words that are the name s o f plants and othe rs words
 Language a nd social ma n (Par t 1) 33

re fe rring to processes of cultiva tion; and this is one aspect of the re lation of
language to s ituation - the s ubje ct matte r o f garde ning is part o f the social
context. But* in fact, the pr o ba bility of such te rms occurring in the discourse
is als o de pe nde nt on what I and my inte r locutor are doing at the time . If we
are actually e ngage d in gar de ning while we are talking, there may be very
few words o f this kind. le a n Ur e quote s an amus ing e x ample fr om some
Rus s ian research on register: ‘T he re cording was o f pe ople frying potatoe s ,
and frying potatoe s was what the y we re talking a bout; but since, it seems,
ne ithe r frying n o r potatoe s we re re pre s e nte d lexically in the te xt, the re cord­
ing was a mys tification to all w ho had not be e n in the kitche n at the t im e /
The image o f language as me re ly the dire ct re fle ction of s ubje ct matte r is
s implis tic and uns ound, as Malinow s ki pointe d o ut fifty years ago; the re is
much more to it than that, a nd this is what the notion o f re gis te r is all a b o u t .
Wha t we ne e d to know about a conte xt of s ituation in orde r to pre dict the
linguis tic fe ature s tha t are like ly to be as sociate d with it has be e n s um­
marize d unde r thre e he adings : we ne e d to know the ‘fie ld of dis cours e 1, the
*te nor of dis cours e ' and the 'mode o f dis cour s e ’. (Se e Halliday et al. 1964,
whe re the te rm 'style o f dis cour s e was used ins te ad of ‘te nor ’. He re I «hall
pre fe r the te rm ‘te nor 1, intr oduce d by Spe nce r and Gre gor y (Enkvis t et at.
1964). A numbe r o f othe r , more o r less re late d, s che mata have be e n
propos e d; see e s pecially Ellis 1965, 1966; Gre gor y 196 7.) Jo h n Pearce
s ummarize s these as follows (Do ug ht y et a l. 1972, 185- 6):
Field refers to the institutional setting in which a piece of Language occurs, and
embraces not only (he subjec ⼘卜 mauer in hand but the whole activity of the
speaker or participant in a setting [we might add: ‘and of the other partici-
pants ] . . . .
T e nor ... refe rs to the relationship between participants ^.. not merely variation
in for mality . - . but . . , s uch que s tio ns as the pe r mane nce or othe r wis e o f the
r e lations hip a nd th e de gre e o f e m o c io na l charge in i t . , , .
Mode re fe rs t o the channe l o f c o m m u n ic a t io n a dopte d: not only the choice
be twe e n s poke n and wr itte n me dium* b ut muc h more de taile - dchoice s [ we might
add: 'a n d o t he r choice s r e lating to the role o f Eanguage in the s it u a t io n '] ,. . .

These ar e the ge ne r al conce pts ne e de d for de s cribing wha t is linguis tically

s ignificant in the conte xt o f s ituation. T he y include the s ubje ct- matte r, as an
aspect of the 4fie ld o f discourse* - o f the whole s etting of re le vant actions a nd
e ve nts within which, the language is func tioning - for this is whe re subject-
matte r be Jongs. We do not, in fact, first de cide what we want to say,
inde pe nde ntly o f the s e tting, and the n dress it up in a garb that is appropriate
to it in the conte x t, as s ome write rs on language a nd language e ve nts seem to
assume. The ‘conte nt’ is part of the total planning that take s place . T he re is
no cle ar line be twe e n the ‘what* and the ‘h o w all language is Language-
in- use, in a conte xt of s ituation, a nd all o f it relates to the s ituation, in the
abstract sense in which I a m us ing the te rm here.
1 s hould here make a passing re fe re nce to diale cts which are part of the
picture o f language a nd s ocial ma n, although not primarily re le vant in the
34 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

e ducational conte xt e xce pt as the focus o f linguis tic attitude s . Ou r language

is als o de te r mine d by who we ar c; that is the basis o f diale ct, and in principle
a diale ct is w ith us all o ur lives - ii is not s ubje ct to choice . In practice,
however, this is Jess a nd less tr ue and the phe nome non o f ‘diale ct s witching'
is wide s pre ad. Many speakers le arn two o r more diale cts , e ithe r in suc­
cession, dr opping the first whe n they learn the s e cond or in coor dination,
s witching the m according to the conte xt o f s ituation. He nce the diale ct
come s 10 be art as pe ct o f the register, if for e xample the s tandar d diale ct is
used in for mal conte xts a nd the ne ighbour hood one in infor mal contexts ,
then one part o f the conte xtual de te r mina tion o f Linguistic features is the
de te r mination o f choice o f diale ct. Whe n diale cts come to have diffe re nt
me anings for us the choice o f diale ct be come s a choice o f me aning, or a
choice be twe e n diffe r e nt arcds o f uu r me aning pote ntial.
Like the language o f the child tlie language o f the a dult is a set of
s ocialty- come xtualize d resources of be haviour , a ‘me aning po te ntia l1that is
related to s ituations o f use_ Be ing *appr opr ia te to the s itua t io n’ is not some
optiona l extra in language ; it is an e s s e ntial e le me nt in the ability to me an.
Of cours e we are all aware of occas ions whe n we feel about s ome thing said
or writte n that it might have be e n expressed in a way that was more
appr opriate to rhe task in ha nd; we want to ‘ke e p the me aning but change
the w o r ding / But these are the special cases, in which we are re acting to
pure ly conve ntional features o f register variation* In the las t resort, it is
impos s ible to draw a line be twe e n 4what he s aid and ‘how he s aid it’ since
this is based on a conce ption of language in is olation fr om any context. The
dis tinction be twe e n one register a n d a nothe r a dis tinction o iw h at is said as
much as o f how it is s aid, w ithout any e nfor ce d s e par ation be twe e n the two.
If a seven- year- old insists on us ing s lang whe n you think he s hould be using
more forma] language , this is a dis pute about registers; but if he insists on
talking about his football he r o whe n you want him to talk abo ut a pictur e he
has be e n painting, the n this is e qually a dis pute ove r registers, and one which
is pr obably much mor e inte re s ting a nd far- reaching for both te ache r and
pupil conce rne d.
T hus our func tiona l picture of the adult linguis tic system is o f a culturally
specific and s ituationally sens itive range of me aning pote ntial. Language is
the ability to 'm e a n' in the s ituation types, o r s ocial conte xts , that are
ge ne rate d by the cultur e . Wh e n we ta lk about ‘uses o f Language', we are
conce rne d with the me a ning pote ntia l that is as sociate d with particular
s ituation types; and we ar e like ly to tve es pe cially inte re s te d in those which
are o f s ome s ocial a nd cultur al s ignificance in the light o f a s ociological
the ory o f language s uch as Be r ns te in’s. T his last point is pe r haps worth
stressing. T he way that we have e nvis age d the s tudy o f language and social
man, througti the conce pt o f 'me a ning pote ntial’ might be re fe rre d to as a
kind of <s ocios e mantics >>in the sense th a t it is the s tudy o f me a ning in a social
or s ociological fr ame wor k. But there is a diffe re nce be twe e n *s ocial1 and
•s ociological’ here. If we de scribe the conte xt of s ituation m te rms o f ad hoc
obs e rvations about the settings in which language is us e d, this could be said
 Language a nd social ma n (Part 1) 35

to be a ‘sociaJ’ account o f language but hardly a 4sociological* one , since the

concepts on which we are dr awing are not re fe rre d to any kind o f general
s ocial theory. Such an account can be very illumina ting, as de mons trate d in a
br illiant pape r publis he d twe nty ye ars ago by T . F. Mitc he ll, calle d ‘The
language o f buying and s e lling in Cyr e naica’ - though since the language
s tudie d was Cyre naican Ar a bic and the pape r was publis he d in a le arne d
jo ur na l in Mor occo it was not al first wide ly known (Mitc he ll 1957). But for
research o f this kind to be re le vant to a te ache r who is profe s s ionally
conce rne d with his pupils ’ success in language it has to relate to social
conte xts .that are the ms e lve s of s ignificance , in the sort of way tha t Bem-
slein^s ‘critical conte xts ' are s ignificant for the s ocialization o f the child. The
criteria w ould the n be s ociological r athe r than s imply social - bas ed on s ome
the ory o f social s tructure a nd s ocial change . In this respect, the e ar lie r te rms
like F ir th’s 's ociological linguis tics ’ o r 's ociology of language* as used by
Be rns te in, are pe r haps more pointe d than the curr e ntly fas hionable labe l
sociolinguistics'

T ib l» 1 Varie tie s fn la n g ua g e

Dia le c t ( dia le c ta l varie ty") RegM er <diatyp»c variety")

= variety according to the u&ef
A dialect is;
what you speak (habftual(y)
dotemijned by wtio you are ($ocio*ragjon
of origin and/or adoption), and
expressing diversity of social structure
(patterns of social hierarctiy)
So in principle dialects are:
drfferertt ways of saying the same thing
and tend to diffw in;
phonetk»„ phonology, lexicogrammar {but
not in semantics)
Extreme cases:
ar>Ulanguages7 mother-in-law languages
Typtoal instances;
subcultural varieties (standard/rtonstan-
dard)
P rinc ipa l controtNng variable s :
s o c ia l c la s s , cas te ; p r o v e na nc e (rural/
urt>an); g e n e r a tio n a g e ; seic
Characterized by;
strongly-held attitudes towards dialects as
symbol of social diversity
= variety ^according to the use*
A register is:
what yoo are speaking <at the time)
determined by what you are doing (nature
of sod 如 ac^vvrty t>eir>g engaged in), and
expressing diversity of soda⼁丨process
(^octat divrsion of labour)
So in principle registers are:
ways of saying different things
and tend to differ in:
semantics (and hdr>oe in lexioogrammar.
and dometknes phonology, as realization
of this)
Extreme cases:
restricted languages, l anguages for
special purposes
Typical instances
occupational varieties (technical semi-
technical)
Principal controlling variables:
field (type of sociaf action); tenor (role rela­
tionships); mode (symbolic organiza-
Uon>
Cha r a c te r ize d by:
major distinctions of spoken/written; lan分
ua^e in action/fan^uage \n reflection
A social-functional approach to
language*

(Parr e t) Do y ou stress the ins trum e ntaluy o f linguis tics rathe r than its
auionom y ?
(Ha lt ida y ) Thes e are not re ally contr adictory. Bu t the re are two diffe re nt
issues involve d whe n you talk about autonomy. On e is : T o what e xte nt is
the s ubje ct self- sufficie nt?1' My ans we r is: "Jt isn’t : (But the n what subject
is?) The second is: *To what e xte nt are we s tudy ing language for the purpos e
of thr owing light on language , a nd 10 what e xte nt for the purpos e o f chrow­
ing light on s ome thing e ls e ?’ T his is a q ue s tion of goals; it is the que s tion why
you arc doing it. In this sense the two perspectives are comple me nia r y.
Probably mos t pe ople who have lo oke d at language in func tiona l (erms have
had a pr e dominantly ins tr ume ntal appr oac h; lhe y have not be e n conce rne d
so much with the nature o f language as s uch as with the use o f language to
explore s ome thing else. But 1 w ould say that in orde r to unde r s tand the
nature o f language itse lf we also have to appr oach it func tiona lly. So I would
have both perspectives at once . It seems to me tha t we have to recognize
diffe re nt purpos e s for which language may be s tudie d. An autonomous
linguistics is the s tudy o f language for the sake o f unde r s tanding the lin*
guistic system. An ins tr ume ntal linguis tics is the s tudy o f language for
unde r s tanding s ome thing else - the s ocial s ys te m, for e xample .
One needs f o r a re le vant ling uis tic the ory othe r large r the orie s , be hav ioural
and s oc iologic al theories. One c an fin d in y o ur public atio ns m any allus io ns to
Be rnste in's s ociology . W hat doe s Be rnste in m ean fo r y o u?
you are inte re s te d in inte r- organis m linguis tics , in language as inte r ac­
tion, the n you are ine vitably le d to a cons ide ration o f Language in the
perspective o f the social system. Wha t interests me about Be r ns te in is that
he is a the ore tical s ociologis t w ho builds language into his the ory not as an
optiona l extra but as an e s s e ntial compone nt (Be r ns te in 1971, esp. chs.
7- 10), In Be ms le irTs view, in orde r to unde r s tand the social system how ic
persists and change s in the course o f the trans mis s ion o f culture from one
ge ne ration to anothe r , you have to unde r s tand the key role that language
plays in this . He approache s this first of all thr ough the role that language
piays in the s ocialization process; he the n move s on towards a much more
ge ne ral social the ory o f cultur al trans mis s ion a nd the mainte nance o f the social

* F r o m a dis cus s ion with H e r m a n Par r e t (H e r m a n P a r r e l, Discussing language (T he Ha g ue .

Mouton 1974)).
 A s ocial- functional appr oach to language 37

system, still with language playing a key role . T o me as a linguis t this is

crucial for two reasons, one ins tr ume ntal a nd one auto nomous if you like.
Spe aking +ins irume ntally\ it me ans (hat y ou have in Be r ns te in's work a
theory o f the s ocial system with language e mbe dde d in it, so tha t anyone who
is as king, as I am, que s tions such as ‘Wha t is the role o f language in the
trans mis s ion o f cultur e ? how is it that the or dinary e ve ryday use o f the
language^ in the home , in the ne ighbour hood a nd so on, acts as an effective
channe l for communic a ting the s ocial s ystem?' finds in Be rns te in's work a
social the ory in the conte xt of whic h one can as k these que s tions . In the
s econd place , s pe aking ‘a utonomous ly ’ this the n fe e ds back into our study
of the linguis tic system, so That we can use the ins igh Is we get fr om Bem-
s te in’s work to ans we r the que s tion: why is language as it is? Language has
e volve d in a ce rtain way be cause of its func tion in the social system.
W hy this priv ile ge d pos ition o f language in (he s o c ializ ation process, fo r
Bernstein an d fo r y o u?
] s uppos e be caus e , in ih e processes by which the child be come s a me mbe r
of s ocie ty language doe s in fact play the ce ntral part. Eve n if you take the
mos t fundame ntal type o f pe rs onal r e lations hip, that of the child and its
mothe r , this is large ly me diate d thr ough language . Be r ns te in has the notion
of c ritic al s o c ializ ing contex ts^ the re are a s mall numbe r of s ituation type s
like the re gulative conte xt (contr ol o f the child's be haviour by the pare nt),
which are critical in the s ocialization o f the child. The be haviour that tak^s
place within these conte xts is largely linguis tic be haviour. It is the linguis tic
activity which carrie s the cultur e w ith it.

Y ou an d Be rnste in m e an by language v ocalize d language and not othe r

systems o f s igns ?
Ye s , a hho ugh we w o uld o f cours e agree on the impor ta nt role of para-
linguis tic systems like ge s ture . Cle ar ly the more tha t one can br ing these into
the total pictur e , the more ins ight one wilt gain. Bu t nevertheless language ,
in the sense o f speech^ natur al language in its s poke n for m, is the ke y system.
Othe r linguis ts w ork ing in the fie ld o f s ociolinguis tics are Hy m es and
Labov . Is there again s olidarity w ith these researchers?
Hyme s has a dopte d, in s ome o f his wor k a t Least, an intra- organism
perspective on what are es s e ntially inte r- organis m que s tions (see for ex­
ample Hyme s 1971), T his is a comple x point. Le t me put it this way: s up­
pose you are s tudy ing language as inte r action, you can still e mbe d this in the
perspective of language as knowle dge . T his is what is lying be hind Hyme s ’s
notion o ic o m m unic atw e com petence^ or compe te nce in use. To link this up
with the recent his tory o f the s ubje ct, we s hould me ntion Choms ky first. The
gre at thing Choms ky achie ve d was that he was the first to s how that natur al
language could be br ought within the scope o f for malization; that you could
in fact s tudy natur al language as a for mal system. The cost o f this was a very
high degree o f ide a liza tion; obvious ly he had to Leave o ut o f cons ide ration a
great many of thos e var iations a n d thos e dis tinctions th a t precisely interest
38 The s ociolinguis tic pe rspe ctive

thos e o f us who are conce r ne d w ith the s ociological s tudy o f language * Fr om

this point o f vie w Choms kyan linguis tics is a for m o f r e ductionis m, it is so
highly ide alize d. Now, Choms ky's ide aliza tion is expressed in the dis tinction
he draws be twe e n compe te nce and pe r for mance . Compe te nce (in its or ig­
inal sense) refers to ihe natur al language in its ide alize d for m; pe rformance
refers to e ve rything else - it is a ragbag including phys iological side- effects,
me ntal blocks , statistical prope rtie s of the system s ubtle nuances o f me an­
ing and various othe r things all tota lly unre late d to e ach othe r , as Hyme s
hims e lf has pointe d out. If you are inte re s te d in linguis tic inte racfion, you
d o n ’t want the high level o f ide aliza tion that is involve d in ihe notion of
compe te nce ; you can’t use it be caus e mos t of the dis tinctions that are
impor tant to y ou are ide alize d o ut of the picture .
Wha t can you do about this ? Yo u cart do one o ft w o things . Yo u can say in
e ffe ct, K] acce pt tlie dis tinction, but I will s tudy pe r for mance '; you the n set up
"theories o f pe r fo r ma nc e ' in which case it is necessary to for mula te s ome
conce pt (which is Hyme s 's communica tive compe te nce ) to take account o f
the s pe ake r's ability to use language in ways that are appr opr iate to the
s ituation. In othe r words , you say the re is a ‘s ociolinguis tic compe te nce ' as
welt as a linguis tic compe te nce * O r you can d o wha t I w ould d o , which is to
reject the dis tinction altoge the r o n the grounds that we ca nnot ope rate with
this degree and this k in d o f ide aliza tion. We acce pt a much lowe r level of
for malization; ins te ad of re je cting wha t is messy, we acce pt the mess and
build it into the the ory {as Labov doe s with var iation). T o put it anothe r way,
we d o n ’t try to dr aw a dis tinction be nve e n what is grammatical and what is
acce ptable . So in an inte r- organis m perspective there is no place for the
dichotomy of compe te nce and pe rfor mance , oppos ing wha t the s pe ake r
knows to what he does. T he re is no ne e d to br ing in the que s tion o f what the
s pe ake r knows ; the backgr ound to what he does is wha t he could do - a
pote ntial which is obje ctive not a compe te nce , which is s ubje ctive . Now
Hyme s is ta king the intra- organis m ticke t to what is actuaHy an inter^
organis m de s tination; he is doing ‘ps ycho- s ociolinguis tics if you like .
T he re 's no reason why he s houldn’t; but I find it an unneces s ary c o m ­
plication.

T hat is an inte re s ting p o in t here. W hat ac c ording (o y ou is the role o f

ps y chology as a back ground the ory o f ling uis tic the ory ? I ant th ink ing here o f
Saussure *s an d Chom s k y rs view th ai linguis tics is a s ubpart o f ps y chology ,
I would re ject that abs olute ly; not be cause I w ould insist on the autonomy
o f linguis tics , nor because I w ould re je ct the ps ychological pe rs pe ctive as
one o f the me aningful perspective s on language , but be cause this is an
arbitrary se le ction. If s ome one is intere ste d in ce rtain particular que s tions ,
the n for him linguis tics is a branch o f ps ychology; fine, I accept that as a
s tate me nt o f his own intere sts a nd purpos es . But if he tries to te ll me that all
linguistics has to be a br anch o f ps ychology, the n I wo uld say no. I am not
really interested in the boundar ie s be twe e n dis cipline s ; but if you pressed
me for one specific ans we r I w ould have to say tha t for me linguis tics is a
 A s ocial- functional appr oac h to language 39

branch o f s ociology. Language is a par t o f the social system, and the re is no

need to inte rpos e a ps ychological level of inte r pr e tation. 1 am not s aying this
is not a re le vant pe rspe ctive , but it is no t a necessary one for the e x plor ation
of language .
We are now com ing to one o fth e key p o ints : y o ur o p in io n abo ut the re lation
between gram m ar an d s e m antics, and als o abo ut th<xi betw een be hav ioural
potentialy m e aning p o te n tial and gram m ar. Can y o u s ay that there is a p ro ­
gre ssion betw een 4to do\ ‘to m ean* and Uo say\ in y o ur pe rspe ctiv e ?
Ye s , First let me say that 1 adopt the ge ne ral perspective o n the linguis tic
system you find in Hjelmslev> in the Prague s chool with Firth in the Lo ndon
5chooJ, with La mb, and to a ce rtain e xte nt with P ike - la ngua ge as a bas ically
tris tratal system: s e mantics , g r a mma r , phonology. (Gr a m m a r me ans lex-
icogr ammar; tha t is, it include s vocabular y.) Now, it is very im po r ta ni lo say
that e ach o f these systems s e mantics , gr ammar and phonology »is a system
o f pote ntial, a range o f alternatives- If we take the gr ammatical (lex-
icogrammatical) system, this is the system o f what the s pe ake r caw s ay . T his
re late s back to the pre vious point we were dis cus s ing - it seems to me
unneces s ary to ta lk about what the s pe ake r knows ; we do n’t ne e d to be
conce rne d with what is going on in his he ad, we s imply talk about an abs tract
pote ntial. Wha t the s pe ake r can say> i.e ., the le xicogrammatical system as a
whole , ope rate s as the r e alization of the s e mantic system, which is what the
s pe ake r c«rt/tie a« - what I re fe r to as the "me aning pote ntia l'. I see language
essentially as a system o f me a ning pote ntial. Now, once we go outs ide the
language , the n we see that this s e mantic system is itse lf the re alization of
s ome thing be yond, which is what the s pe ak e r can d o - 1 have re fe rre d to that
as the 'be ha viour po te ntia l . I want to insist here tha t there are many
diffe r e nt ways o f going out&ide language ; this is only one o f the m. Pe rhaps it
w o uld be be tte r at this po int to talk in te rms o f a ge ne r al s emiotrc level: the
s e mantic system, which is the me aning pote ntial e mbodie d in language , is
itself the r e alization o f a higher- level s e miotic which we may de fine as a
be haviour al system or more ge ne rally as a s ocial s e miotic’ So whe n I say can
d o y I am s pe cifically re fe rring to the be haviour pote ntial as a s e miotic which
can be e ncode d in language , or o f course in othe r things too.
One o f y o ur siate m e nts is that *can m ean* is a fo rm o f 4can do\
Ye s , a n d that co uld be confus ing, be caus e it ts tr ying to say two things at
once in an abbre viate d for m. T o my m ind, the ke y conce pt is that o f
re aliz ation r language as multiple coding. Jus t as the re is a r e lation o f real*
ization be twe e n the s e mantic system a nd the le x icogrammatical system, so
that can s ay is the re alization o f can m e an, so als o the re is a r e lation o f
r e alization be twe e n (he s e mantic system a nd s ome higher- level s e miotic
which we can re pre s e nt if you like as a be haviour al system. It w o uld be be tte r
to say that can m e an is <a r e alization o f can d o \ or rathe r fcis one for m o f the
r e alization of can d o 9.
Now, in the e arly sixties those o f us who we re inte re s te d in what pe ople do
linguis tically we re labe lle d ‘ta x onomic ’ by the tr ans for mationalis ts T w ho
40 T he s ociolinguis tic perspective

criticize d us for be ing data- orie nte d, for lo o king at ins tance s , for de aling
with corpuses, and so on. T o my knowle dge , no linguis t has ever s imply
described a corpus ; this is a fiction inve nte d for pole mic purpos es . The
que s tion is, what status d o you give to ins tance s o f language be haviour ?
T he re are many purpos e s for which we may be intere ste d in the tex t, in what
pe ople actually do and m e an and ja y , in real s ituations . But in orde r to make
sense of the te xt, what the s pe ake r actually says we have to inte rpre t it
agains t the backgr ound o f what he ‘ca n say\ In othe r words , we see the text
as actualize d pote ntial; it is the actual seen agains t the backgr ound o f the
pote ntial. But note that the actual a nd the pote ntial are at the same k v e lo f
abs traction. T his is what make s it possible to re late the one to the othe r.
T he y are at the same level o f coding within the system, so that any text
represents an actualization (a path thr ough the s ystem) at e ach level: the
level of m e aning y the level of s ay ing (o r w ordings to use the folk- linguistic
te rm for the lex icogra m mat ica I sys te m), and of course the level o f s o unding
or w riting.
T he key no tio n is that o f *re aliz atio n91 in the Hje lm s le v ian sense: each le v e l
is the re alization o f the low e r le v e l?
Ra the r o f the hig he r le ve l, The e ar lie r trad ition us ually had the me a ning ai
the top, not at the bott om!
If y ou can s pe ak o f a te le ology o f y o ur w hole de s cription, can y ou say that
se m antics o r s ocios e m antics is ihe key to the w hole system?
We ll, yes. If I was forced to choos e a ke y, it w o uld be that.

T his se m antic level is s tructure d - y o u use the term 'netw ork*. Can y ou
e x plain this te rm 'se m antic ne tw ork 7 he re ?
1 would use the te rm ne tw ork for all levels, in fact; s e mantic ne twork,
grammatical ne twork, phonological ne twor k. It refers s imply to a re p­
re s e ntation o f the pote ntial at that le ve l, A ne twor k is a ne twor k o f options ,
o f choice s; so for e xample the s e mantic system is re garde d as a set o f options .
If we go back to the Hje lms ie via n (or iginally Saus s ure an) dis tinction of
paradigmatic and s yntagmatic, mos t o f mode r n linguis tic the ory has given
priority to the s yntagmatic for m o f organization. S tructure me ans (abs tract)
cons titue ncy , which is a s yntagmatic conce pt. La mb treats the two axes
togethe r: for him a linguis tic s tratum is a ne twor k e mbodying both syn-
tagmatic and paradigmatic re lations all mixe d up toge the r, in patte rns o f
what he calls A N D node s and O R node s . 1 take o ut the par adigmatic
re lations (F ir th's ^ r e / w ) a nd give priority to these; for me the unde r lying
or ganization at each leve] is par adigmatic. Ea c h level is a ne twor k o f para-
digmatic re lations , o f O R s - a range of alte rnative s , in the s ociological sense.
This is what I me an by a p o te ntial: the s e mantic system is a ne twor k o f
me aning pote ntial. T he ne twork cons is ts very s imply o f a set o f inte rre late d
systems, the system be ing us e d here in the Fir thian sense, though pe rhaps
slightly more abs tract, a nd making fulle r u&e o f his own fcf>olysystemic'
principle . Le t me jus t de fine it: a system is a set p f options , a set o f
 A s ocial- functional appr oach to language 41

pos s ibilitie s A B or C, toge the r with a condition o f e ntry. T he e ntry

condition states the e nvir onme nt: in the e nvir onme nt X, the re is a choice
among A, B a nd C ’. T he choice is obligator y; if the conditions obtain* a
choice mus t be made . T he e nvir onme nt is, in fact, anothe r choice (a nd he re I
de part fr om F ir th’ for whom the e nvir onme nt of a system was a place in
structure - the entry condition was s yntagmatic, whe re as mine is again
par adigmatic). It is e q u iv a le n t to s aying ‘if you have selected X (out o f X and
Y ) the n you mus t go on to select e ithe r A* B or C .’ T he ‘the n’ expresses
logical de pe nde nce - the re is no r e al time here - it is a pure ly abs tract mode l
o f language as choice as. sets o f inte r r e late d choices. Huds oiT s recent book
(1971) gives an excellent account o f syste m ne tworks in grammar .
Now this is what is re pre s e nte d in the ne twork. T he ne twork is a re p­
re s e ntation of options more par ticular ly o f the inte r r e lations among
options . He nce , a s e mantic ne twor k is a re pre s e ntation o f s e mantic options ,
o r choices in me aning.
Is (here any diffe re nce betw een a s e m antic structure and a gram m ax ical
structure ?
We may have some confus ion he re thr ough the use o f the te rm s tructure .
May I use it in the Fir thian sense: jus t as the system is the form of re p­
re s e ntation o f par a digmatic r e lations the s tructure is the for m of re p­
re s e ntation o f s yntagmatic re lations . T he o ut p ut o f any path through the
ne twork o f systems is a s tructure . In othe r words , the s tructure is the
expression of a set o f choice s made in the system ne twork. We know more or
less what the natur e o f grammaticaJ s tructure s is. We know that cons titue nt
structure in s ome for m or othe r is an ade quate form of r e pre s e ntation of the
structures lh a t are the output o f the le xicogrammaticat level. It is much less
clear what is the natur e of the structure s tha t are (he o utput o f the s e mantic
level. La mb us e d to dr aw a dis tinction here; he used to say that the s e mantic
structures were ne tworks , while le xicos yntactic s tructures were trees and
morphological s tructure s we re s trings. 1 d o n 't think he holds to this any
more . If you take the sort o f work th a t Ge offr e y T ur ne r has be e n doing, o f
the inve s tigation of language de ve lopme nt in young childre n, whe re we have
be e n using the notion o f me a ning pote ntia l in the for m o f s e mantic system
networks, in this s ituation it has be e n pos s ible to bypas s the level o f s e mantic
structure a nd go s traight into le xicogrammattcal cons titue nt structure
(T urne r 1973), T hat's all r ight for ce rtain limite d purpos e s . But there is
obvious ly a limitation he re , and whe n we a tte mpt s e mantic re pre s e ntation
for anything othe r than these highly re stricte d fie lds , it is almos t ce rtainly
going to be necessary to build in s ome conce pt o f s e mantic structure . Bui
what it w ill lo ok Jike exactly I d o n 't know. I d o n 't think we can tell yet.
Probably some for m o f r e lational ne twor k o n the lines that La m b a nd Peter
Re ich are working on (Re ic h 1970).
T he in p u t o f the s e m antic netwfork is s oc iologic al and partic ular, an d the
output is ling uis tic an d g e ne ral W hat d o y o u m e an by 'p artic ular’ on ihe one
hand and ‘general* on the o th^r hand?
42 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

Le t me take an e xample . Suppos e you are inte re s te d, in a conte xt of

cultural trans mis s ion, in the way in which a mothe r controls the be ha vio ur o f
the child. She is expres s ing, ihr ough the use o f language , ce rtain abstract
be haviour al options , which we the n characte rize in te rms which re late the m
to some mode l o f the social system. In othe r words she may be choos ing
among diffe re nt forms of c ontr ol - a s imple jmpe rative mode , a pos itional
appe al, a persona] appe al o r the like , as in Be r ns te in’s wor k; and whe n we
show how this choice is e ncode d in language , what we are doing is de r iving a
set o f linguis tic cate gorie s fr om options in the social system. Now these will
be very ge ne ral categories* in the linguis tic system: for ms o f trans itivity, or
forms of modification within the noun phras e, for e xample . But in orde r to
get to the m, we have lo go thr ough a ne twor k o f be ha viour a l options which
be come highly spe cific. A linguis tic cate gory such as 'claus e type: mate rial
process, be ne factive ’ appe ars (a mong othe r things ) as the expression of
some be haviour al option that is highly specific in te rms o f the s ocial the ory,
such as 1thre at o f loss of privile ge ’. T he s ociological cate gorie s which these
linguis tic one s realize will in re lation to the s ocial system be very particular ,
de riving from par ticular social conte xts . Yo u can re late this to the well-
known proble m of ge tting fr om the ‘mac r o’ scale of society to the ‘micr o
scale o f language . T his is wron^Jy pos e d, in my vie w; the pr oble m is not one
of size, b ut of level o f abs traction* Wh a t are, for language , highly abs tract
and ge ne ral cate gorie s have to be seen as re alizing highly concre te and
specific notions in the s ocial s tructure .

T he w hole d iffic ulty is to de fine the re lation on the one hand between the
be hav ioural pote ntial and the m e aning p o te ntial and on the othe r hand
between ik e m e aning po te ntial and the gram m ar. T hese tw o re lations , that is
w hat y our linguis tic the ory has to de fine . W hat are the diffe re nt c onditions fo r
a se nm m ic ne tw ork in conne ction w ith the othe r tw o levels o f the w hole
the ory ?
1 would see both these re lations as de fine d by the conce pt o f r e alization.
The s e mantic ne twor k is one level in a system o f multiple coding. T he re are
two matn trends in thinking about language , ar e n't the r e ? T he re is the
re aliz ational vie w, language seen as one system code d in anothe r a nd the n
re coded in anothe r ; a nd the c o m binato rial vie w, whe re language is seen as
large r units made up of s malle r units . O f cours e both these re lations are
found in language b ut pe ople assign the m ve ry varying statuses. If we adopt
the first e mphas is , which is the Hje lms le vian vie w, we can e xte nd the
re alizational conce pt outs ide language , so that jus t as the 1e\ icogrammatica]
system realizes the s e mantic system, the s e mantic system realizes the
be haviour al system, o r the s ocial s e miotic. If we the n cons ide r any s pecific
part o f the s e mantic system, the re are thre e conditions which our re p­
re s e ntation mus t me e t. On e is that it mus t as sociate this part o f the system
with othe r parts o f the s ame system on the same le ve l. In othe r words , we
must be able lo show what is the total s e mantic pote ntia l within whic h the
particular set of options that we ar e de aling with ope rate s . Bu t at the same
 A s ocia ⼘卜func tiona l appr oac h 10 language 43

time , we mus t be able to re late it to the othe r systems in both dire ctions : both
upward and downwar d. T hat is, if we claim that we have ide ntifie d a set of
options in me aning, not only do we have to re late these to othe r sets of
options in me aning in a s ys te matic way but we have als o to show, first, how
this set of options in me aning re alize s an as pe ct o f the s ocial system and,
s econdly, how it is in turn re alize d in the le xicogrammatical system. T his is a
very s trong de ma nd, in a sense, be caus e if one says that the re is a s ignificant
clioice in me aning in social- control s ituations be twe e n, say, mo r a l dis ­
appr obation a nd othe r forms o f dis a ppr obalion, as Ge offr e y T ur ne r doe s , or
be twe e n impe r ative and obligative lype s o f rule- giving, the n one mus t be
able to specify thre e things : one , exactly how this relates to the othe r options
in me aning tha t have be e n set up; two, how this expresses higher- level
be haviour al options ; thre e , how this is in tur n re alize d in the gr ammar . If we
claim that a child can inte rpre t the sociat system by lis te ning to what his
mothe r says, the n pre s umably a linguis t s hould be able to do ihe s ame .

How can one de fine the dis s im ilarity o f re aliz ation betw een the se m antics
and ihe gram m ar the n? In othe r w ords, w hat is the de finition o f g ram m ar?
We ll I am not very cle ar on the boundar ie s he re , be twe e n le xicogrammar
and semantics. I te nd to ope r ate with r athe r fluid boundar ie s . But it can be
de fine d the or e tically, in tha t the le xicogrammatical s yste m is the level of
inte rnal orga nization of langu age, the ne twor k o f re lations o f linguis tic fo r m .
An d it is re late d outs ide language only indire ctly, thr ough an inte rface . I
would als o want to de fine it func tiona lly, in te rms o f the me tafunctions ; we
have n’t come to that yet. Le t us jus t say that it is the pure ly inte rnal level of
or ganization the core o f the linguis tic system.

W ith a 'gram m atical* and a "lex ical* part?

Ye s , but - at least in my pe rs pe ctive ; one might conce ive differencly for
othe r purpos e s - the two are not re ally diffe r e nt. The lexical system is not
s ome thingthat is fitte d in afte rwards to a set o f slots de fine d by the grammar .
The lexicon - if I may go back to a de finition I used many years ago - is
s imply the mos t de licate gr ammar . In othe r words , there is only one ne twork
o f le x icogrammatical options . An d as these be come more a nd more specific,
they te nd more and more to be re alize d by the choice o f a lexical ite m rathe r
than by the choice o f a gr ammatical structure. But it is all part o f a single
grammatical system.
Is "syntax* als o a com pone nt o f (he gram m ar^
Yo u notice 1 am avoiding the te rms y/i/flx; only for this reason - that it has
come into present- day linguis tics fr om two diffe r e nt sources and so It has two
diffe re nt me an mgs. On the one ha nd you have syntax in the conte xt of
semantics- syntactics- pragmatics, whe re it is de fine d in te rms o f a general
theory o f signs, on crite ria which are dr awn fr om outs ide language . On
the othe r hand, there is the conte xt in which y ou have semantics-
grammar- phone tics , and the n w it hin grammar you have the divis ion into
s yntax- morphology. T his is a diffe re nt sense of the te rm, whe re the criteria
44 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

are within language itse lf; syntax is tha t part o f the gr ammatical system
which de als with the c ombina tio n o f words into se nte nce s, o r phrases into
sentences* But I mys e lf am not convince d o f the tr a ditional linguis tic dis-
tinctian be twe e n syntax and morphology, at least as a ge ne ral phe nome non;
1 think it applie s to ce rtain language s only, and s o l do n’t feel the ne e d to use
syntax in that sense. But I am avoiding using it in the o ih e r sense be cause of
the confus ion be twe e n (he two me anings o f the te rm.
/ w ouitl lik e to com e back to the re lation betw een se m antics and g ram m an
i$ i( poss ible (hat a s e m antic op (ion has m ore than one re alization in the
gram m ar?
Yes. Well* that's a very good a nd ope n q ue s tion, to my mind. Le t me start
by s aying that I think we mus t a dmit ihe ore ticaHy that it is poss ible. We may
have what La mb c M s div e rs ific ation be twe e n levels. Wha t this me ans is that,
in addition to o ne 峰 t o o n e re lations in the coding system, whe re one e le me nt
on one level is re alize d by one e le me nt on anothe r le ve l, you may als o have
many- lo- one a nd one- to- many+ Now here we are talking about one- to-
many; in othe r words the phe nome non whe re one d e m e m in the s e man­
tic system is re alize d by more than one in the le x icogr ammaiical system.
First, the n we mus t admit the or e tically that this happe ns , that there is free
var iation in the gr ammatical system, with one me aning re alize d by two or
more forms . But tlien I would add that we s hould always be s us picious whe n
we find this , be cause it us ually turns out that ihe dis tinction in the lexico-
gr ammatical system doe s in fact express a more de licate dis tinction in the
s e mantic sysiem (hat we have n’t y et got round to. In othe r words, le t us not
go so far as lo de ny free var iation, but le t us be h ighly s us picious o f any actual
instances o f it, be cause very ofte n it turns out that there is a more s ubtle or
more 'de lica te 'dis tinc tion in the s e mantic system which is be ing expressed in
this way.

Can we go so far as to say that the gram m atic al system is ‘arbitrary * in

conne ction w ith the m e aning diffe re nce s ?
Wha t do you me an by arbitrary?

Vn the S aussure an sense the re lation betw een *s ig nifiantfs ig niji4 ' is arb it­
rary , T here is no is om orphis m betw een the tw o levels. T his seems to be
im portant because in ge ne rativ e se m antics each s y ntactic diffe re nce m eans at
the same nVrif a s e m antic diffe re nce . T here is no arbitrary re lation between
s y ntax and se m antics there.
WeM, I would te nd 10 agree with this. Whe n we talk about the arbitrarine s s
o f the sign, we are refe rring to the Saus sure an conte nt/e xpre s s ion re lation, 1
be lie ve every linguis t mus t agree tha t the re is arbitrarine s s at this point. But
there is 】think jus t this one point in the whole linguis tic system whe re we can
talk about arbitrarine s s — that is, at the line that is dr awn by Hje lms le v
be twe e n conte nt and e xpre s s ion. T he re lations across this line are ar bitr ary;
this we mus t acce pt. But if we are cons ide ring (he re lation be twe e n s eman*
tics and gr ammar , which is all within Hje lms le v*s conte nt, the n ] wo uld say it
 A s ocial- functional appr oach to language 45

is no t arbitrary. Cons ide r a gr ammatical s tructure . A grammatical s tructure

is a configur ation of roles, o r functions if you like , e ach o f which derives f rom
some option In the s e mantic system - n o i one to one , but as a whole . Let us
take an e xample fr om child language . The child says w ater o n , me aning M
want the wate r tap tur ne d o n / We re lale this to some ge ne ral me aning or
function for which the child is us ing language : in this case, the satis faction of
a mate rial de sire. We can see that the gr ammatical s tructure re pre s e nts this
very cle arly. It cons is ts o f two e le me nts , one ide ntifying the obje ct of the
desire, i.e. w ate r, and the othe r s pe cifying the natur e o f the re que s t, i.e. o n .
We express this by me ans o f s tructural labe ls. It is de a r that the grammatical
structure here is a non- arbitrary configur a tion o f ele me n ts which, take n as a
whole , re pre s e nt the function for which language is be ing used, and e ach of
which cons titute s a particular role within that function, l__et me say in pars ing
that this was s aid by Malinows ki (1 9 2 3) whe n he po inte d out thac the
e le me ntary s tructure s of the child's language re pre s e nte d very cle arly the
functions that language s erved fo r iL 1 agree with this , but 1would go furthe r
and say that it is als o a prope rty o f a dult language : if you take a grammatical
structure, for e x ample a trans itivity s tructure that we repres nt in te rms of
categories like age nt, process and goal, or a modal s tructure , in te rms of a
modal e le me nt cons is ting o t s ubje ct plus finite ness, a nd a re s idual or
'pr opos itional' e le me nt, e ach of these grammatical s tructuie s represents a
configuration that is de rive d as a whole from the s e mantic level of which i( is
the re alization. So, in that sense, I would cons ide r that the linguis tic system
at that point is non- arbiirary. T he arbitrarine s s come s in s imply in the
re lation be twe e n the conte nt a nd the e xpre s s ion.

is it pos s ible to re late a!! that y ou s aid abo ut the scope o f linguis tics , and
abo ut the re lations hips betw een be hav iour, m e aning and gram m ar, to the
"func tional aspect o f y our the ory o f language ?
Ye s . I would acce pt the label ‘func tio na r and I think the point that we
have jus t be e n dis cus s ing provide s an e xce lle nt illus tr ation o f this. Cons ide r
any s emence o f the a dult la nguag e > for e xample in Englis h ‘Balbus built a
wall . T aking up what J s aid jus t now, this re presents a configur ation o f roles,
or s yntactic functions , a configur a tion which is not ar bitr ary since it re p­
resents very cle arly the me aning o f the sentence as a set o f options in the
s e mantic system.
We can now go on to say that this sentence e mbodie s a numbe r o f
structures all at the same time ; the re are re pre s e nte d in that s e nte nce at least
three - let us confine ours e lve s to thr e e - diffe r e nt s tructural configurations ,
each one o f which corre s ponds to a diffe r e nt function of language . O n the
one hand, ihe re is a trans itivity s tructure involve d in it; we could char ac­
terize this as Age nt + Process ⼗十Go a l of result. Now this configuration
represenls the function o f language e xpre s s ing a conte nt, what I pre fe r to
call the id e atio nal function: language as e xpre s s ing the s pe ake r's e xpe rie nce
of the e xte rnal world, and o f his own inte r nal wor ld, that o f his own
consciousness. But on the othe r ha nd that clause has s tructure als o in the
46 丁he s ociolinguis tic perspective

mo da l sense, re pre s e nting what I would call the im e rpe rs onal function of
language , language as expressing re lations among par ticipants in the s itu­
ation, and the s pe ake r's o w n intr us ion into it. So the claus e consists simu^-
lane ous ly o f a m o d al e le me nt plus a re s idua! e le me nt. The moda l e le me nt
expresses the par ticular role that the s pe ake r has chos e n to adopt in the
s ituation and the role or role options that he has chos en to assign to the
he are r. A t the same time the clause has a ih ir d s tructural configuration, that
in te rms o f a them e and a rhe m e , which is its s tructure as a message in re lation
to the total communication proce s s - e xpre s s ing its ope r ationa l re le vance , if
you like. The point I want to make is this: in my opinion allthe s e thre e - and
I would be pre pare d to add one o r fwo more - s tructural configurations are
e qually s e mantic; the y are all re pre s e ntations of the me a ning of that clause
in respect o f its diffe r e ni functions* the functions w h ic h 【have referred to as
id e aiio n al, inte rpe rs onal a nd te x tual. So in all these cases the s tructure is not
arbitrary, to link up with what we we re s aying t>efore.

is there any diffe re nce betw een the ty pology o f the 'uses* o f language and
the ty pology o f the '/unctions ^ o f language ? I be lie v e that y ou de fine the
1fu nc tio n as a discrete are a o f fo rm aliz e d m e aning p o te n tial
Right. I wo uld like to make a dis tinction be twe e n Junction and us e , jus t as
you suggest, a nd s ome what in these terms. As far as the a dult language is
conce rne d, it is pos s ible to talk about the uses o f language , by which 1 would
unde rs tand s imply ihe s e le ction o f options within the linguis tic system in the
context o f actual s ituation types; use in its infor mal eve ryday sense. In that
sense, use is a valuable conce pt; but we can't re ally e nume r ate the uses of
language in a very s ys te matic way - the neares t we can come to thM is s ome
concept of s ituation types, o f which Be rns te in's critical s ocializing contexts
would be an e xample . Now 1 wo uld dis tinguis h that from fu n c tio n , because
the whole of the a dult language s ys te m is or ganize d ar ound a s mall numbe r
of functional compone nts . The linguis tic system, that is to say, h made up of
a few very large sets o f options , each set having s trong inte r nal cons traints
but we ak e xte rnal cons traints . By ‘strong inte r nal cons traints ' I me an that
there is s trong e nvir onme nta l c onditioning o n choice: if you make a ce rtain
seFection in one system within that set o f options , this will de te r mine up to a
point the s e le ction you make in othe r systems within the s ame set. Whe re as
the e xte rnal cons traints are we ak; that is to say, the s e le ction does not affect
the choice s that you make in the othe r sets o f options .
T ake for instance the structure o f the claus e . T he re is one set of options in
tra/ts iiiv iiy re pre s e nting the type of process you are talking about, the
par ticipant roles in this process a nd so on. T his is a tighl!y- organize d set o f
systems, e ach one inte rlocking with all ihe othe rs . An d the re is anothe r set of
options , those o f m o o d, r e lating to the s pe ake r's as s ignme nt o f speech roles
to hims e ll and to the he ar e r and so on; there systems are again Tightly
organize d inte rnally. But there is tittle mutual cons traint be twe e n trans ­
itivity and mood. W h jt you select in trans itivity hardly affects what you
select in mo o d, or vice versa. Now what are these compone nts ? Fun-
 A s ocial- functional appr oach to language 47

dame nta] ly, they are the compone nts o f the language system which c or ­
re s pond to the abs tract functions o f language - to what 1 have calle d
m e tafunctions r areas o f me aning pote ntia l which ar e inhe r e ntly involve d in
all uses o f language . Thes e are what I am re fe rring to as ide ationa l, inte r ­
pe rs onal and te xtual; ge ne r alize d functions which have as it we re be come
buiJt into language so that they form the basis o f the or ganization of the
e ntire linguis tic system.
W o uld y ou ide ntify the *fu n c tio n 1 o f language w ith the *s tructure ' o f ion-
g^ge ?
Ma y 1 make a dis tinction he re be twe e n two uses o f the te rm s tructure ?
S tructure can be us e d in a sense which is more or less s ynonymous with
sy stem , whe re s tructure o f language me ans , in effe ct, the linguis tic sys te m .】
have be e n avoiding us ing the te rm s tructure in that sense in orde r to avoid
confus ion; so let me c omme nt o n func tio n and system first. The linguis tic
system is func tiona l in or igin a nd in or ie ntalion* so that in orde r to unde r ­
s tand the nature o f the linguis tic system wc have to e x pla in it as having
e volve d in the conte xt of this set of bas ic functions . System is not ide ntical
with func tion but r athe r the linguis tic s yste m is organis e d ar ound the set o f
abs tract functions o f language , I think tha t is true in the phyloge ne tic sense
in the e volution o f language ; I a m sure it is true in the ontoge ne tic sense, in
che de ve lopme nt o f language by a child. In othe r words , the nature of Ihe
linguis tic system is s uch th a t it has to be e xplaine d in func tiona l te rms .
T he othe r sense o f s tructure is the stricter, Fir thian sense, whe re structure
is the abstract cate gory for the r e pre s e ntation of s yntagmatic re lations in
language . He r e I w ould say that ju n c tio n a nd s tructure are also diffe r e nt
conce pts , and iti orde r to re late the m we have to think o f Junc tio n in its othe r
sense o f s tructural functions or role s like Age nt, Ac tor , Subje ct, T he me and
Ihe rest. A linguis tic s tructure is the n a configur a tion of functions . But this is
func tion in a diffe r e nt sense, though the tw o are ultimate ly re late d.

is n ’t it the case that y o u use an e x trinsic de finitio n o f *func tio n'? T here is
als o anothe r de finition in the Hje tm s te v ian sense where *Jun c tio n ' is no thing
else than Inte rsy ste m atic re lations hip. Y o ur de finitio n is an e x trinsic d e finitio n
o f •func tio n •
Ye s ; in the firs t sense I a m de fining ju n c tio n e xtrins icaliy, 1 am not us ing
the te rm in its te chnical Hje lms le vian sense, B u i 1 think the re is an impor ta nt
conne ction be twe e n this e xtrins ic sense a nd the s e cond sense I re fe rre d to
jus t tio y f^ ju n aio n us e d m the me a ning o f gr ammatical functions as dis tinct
from gr a mmatica l classes or cate gorie s . T hat notion of func tion refers to an
e le me nt o f structure cons ide re d as a roie in the total s tructural c o n­
figur ation. T he re is a r e lations hip be twe e n this me aning o f function and the
extrinsic sense iti which I am us ing the te rm: the gr ammatical functions , m
the sense o f roles, are de rivable fr om th« e xtrins ic functions o f language .

T he category o f Junc tion is a very classic one in linguis tic the ory and has
been use d since S aussure e nd Hje lm s le v . / assum e that the Prague s chool was
48 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

ins pire d and fas cinate d by B uhle r's scheme o f (he diffe re nt func tions o f
language (Buhle r 1934; Vache k 1966). D o y ou beiieve that the B u h h r
scheme is s tilt v aluable , or th at B uhle rfs d e finitio n o fth e expressive^ conativ e
and re fe re ntial func tio ns o f language is s tiK v alid?
I think to a ce rtain e xte nt it is; b ut re me mbe r that Buhle r is not atte mpting
to e xplain the nature o f the linguis tic system in functional te rms . He is us ing
language to inve s tigate s ome thing else. His interest is, if you like , psy-
cholmguis tic; a nd one might compare for e x ample Ma lino w s ki^ functional
the ory o f language , which is als o aime d outs ide language although in
anothe r dire ction, e thnogr aphic o r s ociolinguis tic as it w o uld be calle d now.
I w ould cons ide r both these views e ntire ly valid in te rms o f the ir own
purpos e s , but I wouJd want mys e lf to adopt a s ome what diffe re nt (though
re late d) system o f functions in or de r to dire ct it inwards to e xplain the nature
of the linguis tic system. T he de finition is s till extrinsic but the purpos e is an
intrins ic one . I can e xplain very s imply the re lation be twe e n the func tiona l
fr ame wor k that I us e and that o f Biihle r. My ow n id e atio nal corre s ponds
very dos e ly to Biihle r*s re pre s e ntational^ except tha t 1 want to introduce the
furthe r dis tinction within it be twe e n e x pe rie ntial and lo g ic al, which cor­
re sponds to a fundame ntal dis tinction within language itself. My own inte r­
pe rs onal corre s ponds more or less to the s um o f BuhLer's conativ e and
ex pressive, because in the linguis tic system these two are not dis tinguis he d.
T he n I ne e d to add a thir d func tion, name ly function, which you
will not find in Malinows ki o r Buhle r o r anywhe re else, because it is intrins ic
to language : it is the func tion that language has o f cre ating te xt, o f re lating
itse lf to the conte xt - to the s ituation aiid the pre ce ding text. So we have the
observer func tion, the intrude r func tion, and the re levance func tion, to use
anothe r te rminological fr ame wor k tha t I s ome time s find he lpful as an
e x planation. T o me the s ignificance of a func tiona l system of this kind is that
you can use it to e x plain the nature o f language , be cause you find that
language is in fact s tructure d along these three dime ns ions . So the system is
as it were both extrinsic and intrins ic at the same time . It is de s igne d to
e xplain the inte rnal natur e o f language in s uch a way as to re late it to Us
external e nvir onme nt.

C o uld y ou giv e a b rie f de s cription o f w hat y ou m e an by the lo g ic a l’ and

'ex perientiaV func tio ns o f language ?
Wit hin the ide ational func tion, the Lexicogr am ma t ica I system e mbodie s a
cle ar dis tinction be twe e n an e x pe rie ntial a nd a logical compone nt in te rms of
the type s o f s tructure by which these are re alize d. T he e x pe rie ntial function,
as the name implie s , is (he ‘conte nt func tion of language ; it is language as
the expression o f the processes and othe r phe nome na o f the e xte r nal wor ld
including the world of the s pe ake r’s own cons cious ne s s , the world of
thoughts , fe e lings and so on. T he lo g ic al compone nt is dis tinguis he d in the
linguis tic system by the fact that it is expressed thr ough recursive s tructure s ,
whereas all the othe r functions ar e expres s ed thr ough nonre curs ive s truc­
tures. In othe r words the logical c ompone nt is that which is re pre s e nte d an
 A s ocial- functional appr oach to language 49

the linguis tic system in the fo r m o f parataxis and hypotaxis , including s uch
re lations as coor dina tion, appos ition, co ndition a a d re por te d speech. These
are the re lations which cons titute the logic o f natural language ; including
those which de rive fr om the natur e o f language its e lf - re por te d speech is
obvious ly one e x ample o f this, and anothe r is appos ition, the "namely*
r e lation I think it is necessary (o dis tinguis h the logical fr om the experien-
tial partly be cause logical me anings are cle arly dis tinct in the ir r e alization,
having e xclusive ly this line ar recursive mode o f e xpre s s ion, and partly
because one can s how tha t the logical e le me nt in the linguis tic system, while
it is ide ational in origin, in that it derives fr om the s pe a ke r s expe rie nce o f
the e xte rnal wor ld once it is b uilt into language be come s ne utr al with
rcspect to the othe r functions such that all s tructure s whate ve r the ir
functional origin can have built into the m inne r s tructure s o f a logical
kind.

!s the ^id e atio nal func tio n ide ntic al w ith the "rejerentiai* func tio n o f ian-
guage ?
We ll, I think it include s the re fe re ntial function^ but it is wide r. It de pe nds
how wide ly one is us ing the te rm re fe re ntial. It is ce rtainly wide r than the
strict de finition o f re fe re ntial, b ut it might be cons ide re d as e quivale nt to
re fe re ntial in the sense in which Hyme s uses the te rm, provide d one points
out that it has these tw o s ubcompone nts o f e x pe rie ntial a nd logical - 1am not
sure whe re Hyme s w ould put the logical e le me nt in the linguis tic system.
Hyme s (1 9 6 9) has a bas ic dis tinction be twe e n re fe re ntial and s ocioe x­
press ive; as I unde r s tand itt this w ould corre s pond pre tty closely, his
re fe re ntial to my id e atio nal, noting this que ry about the logical, and his
socioex pressive to my inte rpe rs onal.

Is it pos s ible in y o ur ling uis tic the ory to e laborate a 'hie rarc hy 9o f func tions ,
or is it s ufficie nt to m ak e u p the ttax onom y i o f func tio ns ?
Ye s , the latte r. I w ould not like to impos e a hie rarchy o f functions ,
be caus e I be lie ve that there can be hie r archy only for the purpos e o f given
inve s tigations . It is notice able tha t thos e whos e or ie nta tion is primar ily
ps ychoJinguis tic te nd to give priority to the ide ationa l func tion, whe re as for
those whos e or ie nta tion is primarily s ociolinguis tic the pr ioritie s are at least
e qual and poss ibly the othe r way —pr ior ity might be give n to the inte r ­
pe rs onal function. T his could be re fle cte d in the dir e c tion o f de rivation. If,
let us say, one was working with a functionally- bas e d ge ne rative s e mantics , it
might well be tha t for s ociological, or r athe r ‘in t e r o r g a n is m ’, purpos e s one 's
ge ne rative c ompone nt w ould be the inte rpe rs onal func tion, whe re as fo r a
more ps ychologically- orie nte d, ‘intra- organis m’ s e mantics the ge ne rative
compone nt would be, as it us ually is in ge ne rative semantics* the ide ationa l
one .

/ be lieve that this que s tion o f hie rarchy o f Junctions is very im po rtant in
linguis tic discus s ion now aday s . I th in k fo r e x am ple o f the Chom s k y an s ophis ­
tication o f the "ex pressi veyfu nc tio n oflang uage . Chom s k y de fine s language as
50 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

ex pression o f thougfu and he w o uld n 't Jik e to see stressed the m ore c o m ­
m unicativ e Mature s o f the s e m antic s tructure o f language . W hat do y ou think
o f the stress on the ex pressive func tio n o f language ?
I find it unhe lpful to is olate any one function as fundame nta l. I have very
much a goal- orie nte d vie w, and I can see that for ce rtain type s o f inquir y it
may be us e ful to s ingle out one func tion r athe r than anothe r as funda me ntal,
but I don’t find this us eful mys elf. It seems to me impor tant to give e qual
status in the linguis tic system to all functions . An d I w ould p o in t o u t Chat our
tr aditional approach to g r a mma r is not ne arly as one - s ide dly orie nte d
towards the ide ationa l function as s ome time s seems to be as s ume d. For
ins tance , the whole o f the mo o d s yste m in gr ammar , the dis tinction be twe e n
indicative and impe r ative and w it hin indicative be twe e n de clarative and
inlCTTOgative - this w hole are a o f g r a m m a r has n o t h in g w ha te ve r to do with
the ide ational c ompone nt. It is not re fe re ntial al all; it is pure ly inte r ­
pe rs onal, conce rne d w ith the s ocial- inte ractional function o f language . It is
the s pe ake r taking o n a ce rtain role in the speech s ituation. T his has be e n
built into our inte r pr e ta tion o f g r a mma r , and I see no re as on for de par ting
from this and tr e ating the social me aning o f language as s ome kind o f
optiona l extra.

W o uld y ou s ay it is very pe riphe ral?

I d o n ’t think it is pe r iphe r al a t alJ. I d o n ’t think we can talk about the
functions in these te rms o f ce ntral and pe riphe ral. If you want a mode l o f the
production o f dis cours e , I would say tha t me anings in all functions are
ge ne rate d s imultane ous ly a nd ma ppe d onto one anothe r ; not that we first of
all decide on a conte nt and the n run it thr ough a a inte raction machine to
de cide whe the r to make it a s tate me nt o r a que s tion. (I avoid us ing the te rm
ex pressive in this dis cus s ion s imply be cause the re is a confus ion here be ­
twe en ex pressive me aning the e xpre s s ion o f thought a nd ex pressive in the
more usual Buhle r sense which is non- re pre s e atational and corre s ponds to
Hyme s ’s use in socio- ex presstve,)

Can one say that the com m unicativ e fu n c tio n is a k in d o f super- fiifiction or
m acro- function, and that the othe r func tio ns that y ou m e ntione d are s ub­
functions o f the com m unicativ e Jun c tio n ?
Ag a in I w ould be unhappy with that. 1 w ould wa nt to insist - though
always pointing out that it is s imply for the purpos e s o f the kinds o f inve s ­
tigation I pe rs onally am inte re s te d in - on the ide ational and inte rpe rs onal
having e qual s tatus . T he te x tual func tion ca n be dis tinguis he d fr om these
two in that it is an e nabling function which is intrins ic to Language; but as
be twe e n the firs t tw o’ I c a n ’t see e ithe r be ing more all- e mbracing than the
othe r. AH three coutd be calle d m e tafunctions - meta- r athe r tha n m acro- ,
the point be ing tha t the y 2ire abs tract; the y re pres ent fu notions o f language as
incorporate d in to the ling uis tic sy ste m . Yo u notice I am he dging s lightly on
your que s tion, be caus e I am not quite sure how to re late these to what you
are calling ‘the communicative func t io n1.
 A s ocial- functional appr oac h to language 51

B u i shat de pe nds o n the de finitio n that y o u giv e o fth e nature o f language .

Do y ou see language firs t o f a ll as 'c o m m unic atio n' o r as an is om orphic
system o f lo g ic al re lations ?
Ce r tainly not as an is omor phic system o f logical re lations . I suppos e
the re fore I see it as c o m m unic a tio n tho ug h I w ould r athe r say that I see
language as a m e aning po te ntial. It is a for m o f hum an s e m iotic, in fact the
main for m of hum a n s e miotic; a nd as s uch I want to characte rize it in te rms
of the par t tha t it plays in the life o f s ocial ma n. Or , what is the s ame thing in
more abstract te rms , I see the linguis tic system as a c o m p o n e n t - a n essential
compone nt - o f the s ocial system.
I be lieve that it is necessary to say that the s pe ak e r an d the he are r hav e a
ce rtain ^know le dge9 o f th e Junc tions o f language . Can y ou spe cify (his ?
I think that is ce r tainly im plie d by w ha i I say, b in I w ould make no use o f
that for mula tion.

W hy ?
Be caus e it is intr oducing a le ye l o f dis cours e which is unne ce s s ary in this
conte xt. It is ce r tainly tr ue tha t for a s peaker and a he ar e r to inte ract
linguis tically the y mus t have this knowle dge ; but we only know that they
have this knowle dge be caus e we see the m inte ract. If the re fore it is possible
to de s cribe the inte r action in the form that I me ntione d e arlie r that is as the
actualization o f a system o f pote ntials , the n it be come s unneces s ary to
introduce anothe r le ve l, tha t o f knowle dge . T his w ould n o t be true for
e xample in r e lation to La mb's work - 1 me ntion La m b be caus e what he doe s
is e ntire ly compatible with my own. We have ve ry much the s ame premises
about language but we diffe r precisely in that he is pr imar ily lo oking at
language intra- organLstically a nd 1 the othe r way. For La m b , o f cours e , the
whole point is to find o u t what it is that the s pe ake r has in his he ad; the re fore
he is trying to characte rize the knowle dge that you have jus t me ntione d
(La m b 1971 1974). But I a m not, I am trying to characte rize human
inte r ac tion a n d it ks unneces s ary to a tte mpt to inte rpos e a compone nt o f
what the s pe ake r- he are r knows into the total de s criptive fr ame wor k.

Is a fu n c tio n al the ory o f language s uch as y ours a the ory o f language as

lang uag e s y ste m as the S aus s ure an Uangue*? I be lie v e th at y o ur the ory o f
language is a step agains t the very classic dichotom ie s o f ‘iang ue ’⼴广p aro le o r
• com pe te nce f ‘pe rform ance * and so on.
Ye s . It is true that ⼁丨 find little use for these dichotomie s - tho ug h 1 s hould
point out that this thought is far fr om be ing or iginal to me . My forme r
te acher, Fir th, hims e lf criticize d these very coge ntly in s ome o f his own
writings (F ir th 1957 esp. ch. 16). He said that he found it unne ce s s ary to
ope rate with mind/ body, me ntalis m/me chanis m, word/ide a a nd ‘s uch dual-
isms\ I w o uld agre e with Fir th - again, always saying tha t it de pe nds on the
purpos e for which y o u are lo oking at language . I me ntione d e ar lie r that, for
what we are going to call s ociolinguis tic purpos e s for the m o m e nt’ it is
necessary to minim ize the dis tinction be twe e n wha t is g ram m atic al and what
52 T he s ociolinguis tic perspective

h acce ptable . If I put this anothe r way I think it will clarify the po int here.
T he re will always be id e aliz atio n in any s tudy of language , o r inde e d in any
systematic inquir y. T he point is here that we ne e d to reduce ihe le ve l of
ide alization, to make it as low as pos s ible , in orde r that we ca n unde r s tand
the processes o f inte r action, the s ort of phe nome na s tudie d fr om an
^thnome thodologicaJ s tandpoint by Sacks Sche gloff a nd othe rs (e .g. Schcg-
loff 1971; Sacks et aL 1974). We have to impos e as low a de gre e o f
ide alization on the facts as is compa tible with a s ys te matic inquir y. T his
me ans , in othe r words , that what is gr a mmatica l is de fine d as what is
acce ptable . T he re is no dis tinction be twe e n these tw o fr om which it also
follows tha t the r e is no place for a dis tinction be twe e n compe te nce and
pe rformance or be twe e n langue and paro le , be caus e the only dis tinction (hat
re mains is that be twe e n the ac tual and the p o te ntial of which it is an
actualization.
W hat is the m e aning o f one o f y o ur state m ents: fIn orde r to unde rs tand the
nature o f language , it is necessary to sxart fro m cons ide rations o f its us e ?9
Oh yes this is a ve ry closely- related point, and come s back to w h a t 【was
s aying e ar lie r, I think that the use o f language can be de fine d ia precisely
these te rms , name ly as the actualization o f a pote ntial. Now we want to
unde r s tand language in us e . Why ? Partly in or de r to appr oach this que s tion
o f how it is that or dinar y e ve ryday language trans mits the e s s e ntial patte rns
o f the culture : systems o f knowle dge , value systems , the s ocial s tructure and
much else besides. How do we try to unde r s tand language in us e ? By looking
at what the s peaker says agains t the backgr ound o f what he might have said
but did not, as an actual in the e nv ironm e nt o f a pote ntial- He nce the
e nvir onme nt is de fine d paradigmatically: us ing language me ans ma king
choice s in the e nvir onme nt o f othe r choices, I w ould the n take the ne xt s te p
o f s aying that, whe n we inve s tigate the natur e o f the linguis tic system by
looking at how these choice s that the s pe ake r make s are inte rr e late d to e ach
othe r in the system, we find that this inte r nal s tructure is in its tur n de te r­
mine d by ihe functions for which language is used - he nce the func tional
compone nts we were ta lking about. We the n have to take one more step and
ask how is it that the linguis tic system has e volve d in this way s ince, as we
have seen, the abs tract func tiona l compone nts are , although re late d to, yet
diffe re nt fr o m the set of concre te uses o f language tha t we actually find in
give n s ituations . This can be s t be approache d thr ough s tudie s of language
de ve lopme nt, thr ough the s tudy o f how it is tha t the child le arns the linguis tic
system. I think whe n we lo ok at tha t fr om a func tiona l point o f vie w, we find
some kind of an ans we r to the que s tion how it is that the linguis tic system
e volve d in contexts o f use.
Is the s tudy o f the ac quis itio n o f language in the c h ild no t a k in d o f
diachronic linguis tics ?
Ye s , I think in a sense it is, though I chink one has got to be care ful here. I
have be e n inte re s te d in language de ve lopme nt in the c hild fr om a func tiona l
point of view, a nd I think that one gets a gre at de al of ins ight here into the
 A s ocial- functional appr oac h to language 53

nature o f the linguis tic 吵镱m and how it may have e volve d. But I think one
has to be car e ful and say s imply how it ‘may ’ have e volve d. We cannot know
for ce rtain that ontoge ny re fle cts phyloge ny. All we can say is tha t whe n we
e xamine how a child le arns the linguis tic system fr om the functional
s tandpoint, we get a pictur e w hic hc oa W be a picture o f how hum a n language
e volve d. One very inte re s ting thing tha t happe ns , or at le as t d id in the case o f
the chiJd I was s tudying, is tha t you first o f all find him cr e ating his own
language on what is pre s umably a phyloge ne tic mode l - T he n the re come s a
very s udde n dis continuity ⼀一at le as t a dis continuity in the expression* and,
more impor ta nt, in the nature o f the system its e lf - whe n the child as it were
shrugs his s houlde rs a nd says, lo ok, this is jus t to o much wor k cre ating the
whole o f hum a n language again fr om the start; why d o n 't I settle for the
re adymade language that I he ar ar ound me ? An d he move s into the adult
system.

One w ay o f s tudy ing linguis tics c o uid be to see how pe ople le arn to m e an.
Le arning how to me an is ex actly the title o fo n e o f y o ur pape rs , it is a s tudy o f
the c h ild 's language , an d language de v e lopm e nt and acquis ition^ topics w hich
are very m uch a t stake now aday s* Can y ou te ll m e w hat this s tudy o f le arning
how to m e an has to offe r to ge ne ral linguis tics ?
I see this again fr om a func tiona l pe rspe ctive . T he re has be e n a great de al
of study o f language de ve lopme nt in the pas t te n o r fifte e n years, b ut mainly
on the acquis ition o f syntax seen fr om a ps ycholinguis tic point of view -
which is comple me ntar y, again to a ‘s ocios e manlic’ pe rspe ctive . T o me
there s eem to be two aspects to be stressed he re . On e is: what is the
ontoge ne sis o f the system, in the initia l stage be fore the child take s ove r the
mothe r tongue ? T he othe r is: what arc the s trate gie s thr ough whic h a child
move s into the mothe r tongue a nd be come s linguis tically a d uk ? I would
s imply ma ke two points he re . I think by s tudying c hild language you ge t a
very good ins ight into function a nd use (which for the very young c hild as I
s aid are s ynonymous ). We can pos tulate a very s mall set o f uses, or func ­
tions , for which the child first cre ate s a s e miotic system, I have trie d this out
in re lation to one s ubject^ and you ca n see the child cre ating a me aning
pote ntial fr om his o w n vocal resources in which the me anings re late quite
s pe cifically to a ce r tain set o f functions which we pre s ume to be general to all
cultures . He le arns for ins tance that language can be used in a re gulatory
func tion to ge t pe ople to do what he wants ; a nd within tha t func tion he
learns to express a s mail numbe r o f me anings , building up a system of
co ntent/ex pre ssion pairs whe re the e xpre s s ion is de rive d e ntire ly from his
own resources. He creates a language,, in functional te rms . T he n a t a ce rtain
point he gives u p this trail. In the case that I s tudie d, the child dr oppe d the
language - cre ating process a t the stage whe re he ha d a pote ntial o f alx)ut four
or five functions with some fifty me a nings altoge the r, r oughly fifty e le me nts
in the system. Any wa y the stage come s whe n he switches and starts taking
over the a dult s ys te m. So the re is. a dis continuity in the e xpre s s ion; but the re
is no dis continuity in the conte nt, be cause to s tart with he maps the expres-
54 The s ociolinguis tic pe rspe ctive

sions o f the adult system o n to his own functional fr ame wor k. He doe s this,
it seems to me , by a gr adua l s e par ation o f the two notions o f function and
use; on the one hand the or iginal uses o f language go o n e x panding, as he
goes on us ing language in new a nd othe r ways, but at the s ame time he builds
(his functional fr ame wor k into the linguis tic system itself. I have trie d to
describe how he does this ; bas ically I think he doe s it thr ough inte matizing a
fundame nta l dis tinction be twe e n pragmatic uses o f language , thos e which
de mand a respons e, a nd re pre s e nt a way of participating in the s ituation, and
what I call 'ma the tic' uses of language , thos e which do no t de m a nd a
response but re pre s e nt rathe r a way o f obs e r ving a nd o f le ar ning as one
observes . Now these two come o ut o f his original set o f very concre te
functions , but they tur n into func tiona l compone nts o f the linguis tic system
itself, the intcrpe rs onaJ and the ide ational that we we re ta lking about e arlie r.
A re the causes fo r this change e nv ironm e ntal?
I as sume the m to be e nvir onme nta l with a biological foundation. T he
biological conditions mus t be me t, the level o f ma tur ation mus t have l>een
re ached. Give n that level o f ma tur a tio n, the n I would lo ok for e nvir on­
me ntal causes in the social s ys te m. I d o n 't wa nt to get into ar gume nts about
the ps ycholinguis tic me chanis ms involve d, be cause I d o n ’t think this
assumes any particular ps ycholmguis tic pe rs pe ctive .

Is y o ur p o in t o f view not too be hav iouris dc he re ?

No, 1 w ould say tha t it is e mphatically not be haviour is tic. It has always
seeme d to me a nd again he re 1 a m s imply following Fir th, that be haviour is t
mode ls will not account for linguis tic inte raction or fo r language de ve lop*
me m. T he re is a very curio us notion tha t if you are as s igning a s ignificant
role to the c ultur a l e nvir onme nt in language le ar ning you are a be haviouris t.
T he re is no logical conne ction here at all. We s hould pe r haps de molis h the
fallacy o f \ h^ uns tructure d in p ut. T he re has be e n a myth a r ound ove r the pas t
few years that the child mus t have a specific innate language - le arning
capacity, a built- in gr a mma r , be cause the da ta to which he is expos ed are
ins ufficie nt to account for the result* Now that is not true . T he language
ar ound him is fantas tically jjc h and highly s tructure d; La bov (1 9 70 a) has
said this a a d he is quite right. It is quite unnecessary to pos tulate a le ar ning
de vice having these highly specific linguis tic prope rtie s . T ha t doe s n't me an it
is wrong; it me ans it is n't necessary. I wa nt to dis tinguis h very s harply he re
be twe e n the particular ps ychological mode l which you use and the func-
tional conditions on language le ar ning. Thes e do not pre s uppos e e ach othe r
in any way. Wha t 1 am doing is s imply s tudying the child's language
de ve lopme nt in an inte r actional pe rs pe ctive , and this has got no thing w ha t­
e ve r to do with be haviouris t the orie s o f ps ychology.
Ho w doe s th is v ie w point o/t language de v e lopm e nt in the c h ild le ad us into a
sociose m an tic approach to language ?
First, it points up the fact that a child who is le ar ning language is le ar ning
£how to me a n1; that is, he is de ve loping a s e mantic p o t e n t ia l in respect o f a
 A s ocia ⼘卜func tiona l appr oach to language 55

set o f functions in language that are in the las t resort social functions . They
represent mode s o f inte raction be twe e n the child a nd othe rs . So the child
learns how to inte r act linguis tically; a nd language be come s for him a pr im­
ary channe l o f s ocialization, be cause these functions ar e de fine d by social
contexts, in Be rns te in's sense as 1 me ntione d e ar lie r. T he c h ild ’s se mantics
the re fore is functionally s pe cific; what he is de ve loping is a "social seman-
tics\ in the sense that it is a me aning pote ntial re late d to a par ticular set of
primary social functions . An d second - tho ug h ifs a closely re late d p o in t - it
is above all thr ough a de ve lopme ntal appr oach tha t we can make concrete
the notkon of language as part o f the social s e miotic: the conce pt o f the
culture as a system o f me aning, with language as one o f its re alizations .

Co uld y ou e x plain m ore concre tely y our hy pothe s is about the func tio nal
origin o f language ? W hat does the system o f func tions look lik e in this firs t
phas e o f the de v e lopm e nt o f language in the c hild?
In this first phase 1 sugge sted that the child Learns: the ins trum e ntal
function, which is the V1 w a nt’ func tion of language , language used to satisfy a
mate rial ne e d; th&re gulatory func tion, which is the ‘do as I te ll you’ func tion
language us e d to o r de r pe ople about; thecnreracn'ona/ func tion, "me and y o u ’
which is language us e d to inte ract with othe r pe ople ; the pe rs onal function,
‘here I c o m e ' which is language us e d as the e xpre s s ion of the child's
own unique ne s s ; the he uris tic func tion come s a little while be hind, and
is language as a me ans o f e xplor ing the e nvir onme nt, (he ‘te ll me why*
function o f language ; and finally the im aginativ e function^ *let s pr e te nd’,
which is really language for the cr e ation o f a n e nvir onme nt o f one 's own. In
the case o f the particular s ubje ct I worke d with, these six functions had all
appe ar e d in his pr oto language : he ha d de ve lope d a semiocic system in
respect o f all these six functions without ma king any de ma nd on the adult
language at all. T h e e k m c n t s o f the system were e ntire ly his o w n inve ntion.
T he n there came a point at which he s witche d, and as it we re gave up his
own s pe cial system in favour o f that o f Englis h. Simultane ous ly with this
switch, he ge ne r alize d out o f his or iginal range of functions this very ge ne ral
functional oppos ition be twe e n wha t I re fe rre d to as the pragm atic and the
m athe tic. Wit h this c hild the dis tinction was very cle ar, be caus e he de ve lope d
an inte re s ting strategy o f his own, which was abs olute ly cons is te nt: he us e d a
ris ing intonation for all pr agmatic utte rance s , and a fa lling one for all
mathe tic one s . So he kne w exactly what he was doing: e ithe r he was us ing
language as an intrude r , r e quir ing a response (*I wa nt s ome thing", ‘do
s omething*, e tc.) which he did o n a ris ing t o ne o r he was us ing language as
an obs erver, r e quir ing no response (in the me anings of obs e r vation re call or
pre diction), and with these there was a fa lling tone . The pragmatic func tion
e volve d here d e a r ly out o f the ins tr ume ntal a nd r e gulatory uses of language .
The mathe tic function e volve d in a way that was much less cle ar; it re quire d
a lot o f time to trace the his tory o f this b ut I think it arises o ut o f the pe rs onal
and he uris tic functions . Language is firs t us e d to ide ntify the self, in c on­
tradis tinction to the e nvir onme nt; it is the n us e d to e xplore the e nvir onme nt,
56 T he s ociolinguis tic perspective

a nd by the same toke n the n to e xplor e the self. This child made a be autiful
dis tinction be twe e n the ris ing tone for the pr agmatic o r ‘do ing function and
the fa lling tone for the ma the tic or ‘le a r ning’ function.
Ne x t stage, the a dult language , unlike the child*s protolanguage , gives him
the pos s ibility o f me aning more than one thing at once . T he re come s the
mo me nt whe n these functions are incorpor ate d into the linguis tic system
itself, in the highly abs tract for m o f the me tafunctions I me ntione d e arlie r:
the pragmatic func tion into the inte rpe r s onal func tion in the linguis tic
system a nd the mathe tic func tion into the ide ationa l function in the linguis tic
system. Whe re as , tn the firs t stage, the functions s tand in an ^either . . . o r ’
r e lations hip - the child is us ing language e ithe r to do this o r to do that ⼀一the
be auty o f the a dult linguis tic system is that he can do more tha n one thing at
once . In fact he m us t do more than one thing at onc e > be cause now, in the
a dult stage, every time he ope ns his mo uth he is both obs e rve r and intrude r
at the s ame time . An d this is why hum a n language e volve d by putting
be twe e n the me aning a nd the s ound a for ma J level o f gr ammatical s tructure ,
because it is the grammaticaJ s tructure which allows the diffe r e nt functions
to be mappe d onto one anothe r in a sort o f p o ly p h o ny . I use this me (aphor
because in polyphonic mus ic the diffe r e nt me lodie s are mappe d onto one
anothe r so that any particular chor d is at one and the s ame time an e le me nt
in a numbe r of diffe re nt me lodie s . In the s ame way, in a dult language any
e le me nt in the s yntagm 镰say a word - is at one and the s ame time filling a
role in a numbe r o f diffe re nt s tructure s —Now you c a n’t do this without a
gr ammar . T he c hild’s system is a two- level system: it has a conte nt and an
e xpre s s ion. The a dult system is a three- level system, o f conte nt, form and
e xpre s s ion.
S o this func tio n al plurality m ak e s the diffe re nce between adult language
an d c hild language ?
Ye s ; this is what 1 me an by func tiona l plurality - tha t any utte rance in the
a dult language ope rate s on more than one le ve l o f me aning at once . T his is
the cruciaJ diffe re nce be twe e n the a dult language and the child’s language .
Ev e ry thing y ou hav e s aid up tUi now prov e s that y o ur view o f the scope o f
linguis tics diffe rs w idely from the views we are acquainte d w ith in v arious
othe r trends. T his is pe rhaps a g o o d occas ion to turn back to o ur starting-
po int, I w ould lik e to as k y o u to re de fine w hat y ou m e an by 4linguis tics 1,and by
^ocioUnguistk s*^ and 'w fuity ou m e an by s ay ing that g o o d linguis t has to go
outs ide linguis tics '.
We ll I hope I d id n ’t quite p ut it that way, that a good linguis t ZiiU to go
oufs ide linguis tics ! Le i’s go back to the obs e rvation that the re are two main
perspectives on language : one is the intra*organis m pe rspe ctive , the othe r is
the inte r- organis m pe rspe ctive . In the intra- organis m pe rs pe ctive we see
language as what goes on in the he ad; in the inter- organis m perspective it is
what goes on be twe e n pe ople . Now these two perspectives are com*
plc mcntar y, a n d in my opinio n linguis tics is in the mos t he althy s tate whe n
both are take n s e rious ly. T he past te n or fifte e n ye ars have be e n charac-
 A s ocia ⼘卜func tiona l appr oac h to language 57

te rize d by a very large conce ntr ation o n intra- organis m linguis tics , largely
unde r the influe nce o f Choms ky and his ‘language as knowle dge ’ or psy-
cholinguis tic pe rs pe ctive . I am pe r s onally glad to see that the re is now a
re turn to the inte r- organis m perspective in which we take account o f the fact
that pe ople not only s pe ak, bu( tha t they s pe ak to e ach othe r . This is the fact
that intere sts me . Pe ople ofte n as k, mus t you make a choice whe the r you are
going to s tudy intra- or inte r- organis m linguis tics , c a n ’t you jus t study
language ? J wo uld s ay up to a po int you can. If you are s tudying the inne r
areas o f the linguis tic system, linguis tic fo r m in Hje lms le v’s sense - the
phonological a nd le x icogrammatical systems - you can be ne utr al up to a
point; but the m o m e nt you go into s e mantics , your crite ria o f ide alization
de pe nd on your making a s e le ction. Yo u e ithe r say with Choms ky that
linguistics is a branch o f the or e tical ps ychology, or - which is e qually valid -
that linguis tics is a br anch o f theo re tical s ociology. For tha t matte r you could
say that linguis tics is a br anch o f the or e tical aesthetics.

W hat are the im plic ations o f y o ur view f o r the pro ble m o f language te ach­
ing?
T he type o f pe rs pe ctive 1 have on language natur ally relates to my own
interests. My intere sts are primarily in Language and the s ocial system and
the n, re late d to this , in the two areas o f language and e ducation, and
language and lite rature . All these have s ome thing in c ommon. T he y make it
necessary to be inte re s te d in wha ( the s pe ake r doe s ; in the tex t. Now in or de r
to make sense o f ‘what the s pe ake r does\ you have to be able to e mbe d this
in the conte xt o f ‘what the s pe ake r can do,. You*ve got to see the text as an
actualize d pote ntial; which me ans that you have got to s tudy the pote ntial.
As re gards language te aching - could I r athe r say la ng ua g e in educa(ion\
becausc I a m not so muc h conce r ne d with pe dagogical linguis tics as with
e duc ationa l linguis tics , a n d with the kinds o f pr e s uppos ition that are made
about language in the e duc ationa l system at pre s e nt? - he re again you ne e d a
functional pe rspe ctive . Le t me take one e x ample . Cons ide r the que s tion of
literacy, te aching r e ading a nd writing: what is le ar ning to re ad a nd to write ?
Fundame ntally it is an e xte ns ion o f the func tiona l pote ntia l of language .
Those childre n w ho do n’t le ar n to r e ad and write , by and large are childre n
to whom it doe s n’t ma ke sense; to w hom the func tiona l e xte ns ion that these-
me dia provide has no t be e n made cle ar, or doe s not match up with the ir own
e xpe ctations o f wha t language is for . He nce if the child has not be e n orie nte d
towards the type s o f me aning which the te ache r sees as thos e which are
prope r to the wr iting s ys te m, the n the le a r ning of wr iting and re ading would
be out o f conte xt, be caus e funda me ntally , as in the his tory of the human
race re ading a nd wr iting are an e xte ns ion o f the functions o f language . This
is what the y mus t be for the child e qua lly we ll. He r e is jus t one ins tance o f a
perspective on language in the conte x t o f the e duc ationa l system.
In stylistics to o the e mphas is is on the s tudy o f the text, a nd again there is a
functional basis to this . We are intere ste d in what a particular wr ite r has
writte n, agains t the backgr ound o f what he might have wr itte n - including
58 The s ociolinguis tic perspective

comparative ly, agains i the ba ckgr ound o f othe r things he has writte n* or that
othe r pe ople have wr itte n. If we are inte re s te d in what it is a bo ut the
language o f a par ticular work o f lite rature that has its effect on us as readers,
then we shall want to look not s imply a t the e ffe cts o f linguis tic promine nce *
which by the ms e lve s are rathe r trivial, but the e ffe cts o f linguis tic pr o m­
inence in respcct of thos e functions of language which ar€ highlighte d in the
particular work. Ia m thinking here o f Zu m t h o i's point (1 9 7 2 ) whe re he has
said that the various genres o f lite rature in diffe re nt e pochs are char ac­
te rize d by diffe re nce s of e mphas is on the diffe re nt functions o f language . I
think this is very true . It seems to me that you can only unde r s tand the
linguis tic prope rtie s o f the text in re lation to the or ie nta tion o f the whole o f
which it is a par t to ce r tain patte rns o f linguis tic function. I have trie d to
illus trate this in my (1 9 7 1 ) s tudy o f the language o f Go ld in g ’s T he inhe ritors ,
where it is very cle arly the trans itivity system that is at work. T he whole book
is about trans itivity, in a ce r tain sense. T he re is a highlighting o f man's
inte rpre tation o f the processes o f the e xte rnal world; a nd the re fore it is no
accident that the re is a highlighting in the language , in the gr ammar , of
ce rtain aspects o f the trans itivity system. T his illus trate s once again the s ame
perspective on language . A ce ntral pos ition is accorde d to the s tudy o f the
text; no s harp s e paration is made be iwe e n compe te nce a nd pe r for mance ;
the text is seen as an actua lization of the totaJ pote ntial* in the context o f a
functional the or y for the inte r pr e tation of the pote ntia l. I see this as the
thr e ad which links the social, the e ducational a nd the lite rary perspectives
on language .
A sociosemiotic interpre
tation of language
Sociological aspects of semantic
change

1 Text, situation and r egister

/ . / Le t us start with the conce pt of a te xt, with pa r ticular re fe re nce to the
text- in- situation, which may be re garde d as the bas ic unit o f s e mantic
s tructure ⼀一that is o f the s e mantic process. T he conce pt 4te xt’ has no
connotations o f size ; it may re fe r to s pe e ch act, speech e ve nt, topic unit,
e x c ha ng e , e pis ode , narrative a nd so on.
Now from one point o f view, the ma in inte re s t o f the lext is what it leaves
out. For e x a mple the par ticipants in an e ncounte r accord e ach othe r ce rtain
statuses a nd roles, and they do so partly by me ans o f atte ntion to the te xt th«
me anings that are e xchange d. Ye t, as Cicour e l has pointe d out, we know
very Jittle about how the y d o it; we have no re al the ory o f linguis tic inte rac­
tion. Some how, s ymbolic be haviour is inte rpre te d, and me anings arc
assigned. Cicour e l suggests (1 9 6 9 186- 9) that the individuaJ ope rate s with
four inte rpr e tative principle s or as s umptions , which he calls ‘re ciprocity o f
pe rs pe ctive s ', ‘nor mal forms ', *the etce te ra pr inciple 1 a n d ‘de s criptive vo ­
cabulary as indexicaJ e xpre s s ions ’. In any e xchange o f me anings , Che in d i­
vidual assumes (i) that inte rpre tations o f e xpe rie nce are s hare d (othe rs see
things the same way); (ii) tha t there are principle s o f s e le ction and or ga n­
ization o f me aning, a nd the r e for e als o (h i) o f r e cons tituting and s up­
ple me nting omis s ions agree o n what to le ave o u t , a nd the othe r fills it in
- these are I think e ncodings r athe r than omis s ions , w ith s hare d ‘ke y’ or
uns crambling proce dure s ), a nd (iv) that words, or r athe r words-
in- structures, linguis tic forms , are re fe rre d ide ntically to past e xpe rie nce .
Thes e principle s act as ^ins tructions for the s peaker- hearer for as s igning
infinite ly pos s ible me anings to unfo lding social scenes.' T he speaker- hearer
relies heavily on the s ocial system for the de coding o f text.
Cicour e l argues for a ‘ge ne rative semantics* 4that be gins with the
me mbe r ’s e ve ryday wor ld as the bas ic source for as signing me aning to
obje cts and eve nts ’ (1 9 6 9 ,1 9 7 ); a nd this kind o f appr oach to the nature a nd
function of text is a characte ris tic o f e thnome thodologica l linguis tic studies
s uch as thos e of Sacks and Sche gloff, An e x ample is Sche gloff's (1 9 7 1 )
account o f how pe ople re fe r to lo c a tion which, reveals some o f the ge ne ral
principle s on which the speaker- hearer relies in the pr oduc tion a nd unde r ­
s tanding of discourse r e lating to the ide ntifica tion o f place s and o f persons. It
is cle ar fr om his account that whe n par ticipants s elect’ fr om among a numbe r
 Sociological aspects o f s e mantic change 61

o f ‘corr e ct’ de s ignations (s uch as thos e involving ge ographical or personal

reference points ), the ade quate o r as he puts it, ‘right’ s e mantic options
they are ma king use o f the re le vant pa r tic ula r s o f the conte xt o f s ituation; in
Sche gloff’s own fo r mula tio n, 'inte r actants are context- sensitive,' T his is
anothe r ins tance of the ge ne ral principle of pre s uppos ition that is e mbodie d
in the te xt- forming pote ntia l o f the linguis tic system. Jus t as the s pe ake r
selects the appr opriate info r ma tio n focus, dis tr ibuting the me anings o f the
text into infor mation that he de cide s to tre at as re cove rable to the hearer
(give n) and mformation. that he de cide s to tre at as non- re cove rable (ne w),
so in Sche 名 lo ff s e xample the s pe ake r selects the appr opr iate coordinate s ,
and the ir degree o f accuracy, in s pe cifying whe re things are. Sche gloff
appe ars , howe ve r, to leave out the impor ta nt c ompone nt o f tightne s s ' chat
consists in the pa r tic ipa nt’s option o f be ing ‘wr ong that is, of s e le cting a
s e mantic configur a tion that violate s the s Uuational'Conte xtua! restraints,
with a specific communic ative effect - an option which, at least in ihe case o f
inio r nia tion focus , par ticipants very r e adily take up. (Cf. the discussion of
infor mation s tructure a nd infor mation focus , in Halliday 1967b.)

1 2 From a s ociolinguis tic s tandpoint, a (ext is me aningful not so much

because the he are r doe s not know what the s pe ake r is going <c say, as in a
mathe matical mode l o f c ommunic a tio n, but because he doe s know. He has
abundant e vide nce , both from his knowle dge o f the ge ne ral (inc luding
s tatistical) prope rtie s of the linguis tic system and from his s e ns ibility ( the
particular cultur al, s ituational a nd ve rbal conte xt; and this e nable s him to
make informe d guesses about the me anings that are coining his way.
T he s e le ction of s e mantic options by the s pe ake r in the produc( ion o f text
(in othe r words , what the s pe ake r de cide s to me an) is r e gulate d by what
Hyme s (1 9 6 7 ) calls the ‘native the ory a nd system of s pe aking'. The me mbe r
of the c ommunity possesses a "communicative compe te nc e ’ that 'e nable s
[ him] to know whe n to s pe ak and whe n to r e main s ile nt, which code to use,
whe n, whe re a nd to whom, e tc / ; in othe r words , to know the 'rule s of
s pe aking', de fine d by Gr ims haw (1 9 7 1 136) as "ge ne ralizations about re la­
tions hips a mo ng compone nts ' of the speech s ituation. Hyme s has give n a list,
now very familiar, o f the e ight compone nts o f s pe e ch, which may be s um­
marize d, and to a ce rtain exte nt paraphr as e d, as follow s : form a nd conte nt,
s e tting, p a r t ic ip a n t s , e nds (in t e n t a n d e ffe c t ), ke y, m e d iu m , g e nr e , a nd
inte ractional norms . We may compar e this with var ious e arlie r lists such as
that o f Fir th (1 9 5 0 ) which compris e d the participants (statuses and role s),
re le vant fe ature s of the s e tting, ve rbal and nonve r bal action, and effective
result.
On e o f the difficultie s with s uch lists is to know what the or e tical status to
assign to the m in r e lation to the text. Hyme s include s ‘for m and conte nt o f
message\ i.e. the text itself, as one o f the compone nts ; compare Firth's
"verbal action o f the participants *. An alte rnative appr oach is to cons ide r the
s ituational factors as de te r minants o f the text. T his is e x e mplifie d in the
triadic for mula used by Ha llida y, Mc Into s h a nd Strevens (1 9 6 4 ), with its
62 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

cate gorie s o f fie ld te nor and mode . These are cate gorie s at a more abs tract
level which are re garde d as de te r mining r athe r than as including the te xt;
they represent (he s ituation in its ge ne rative aspect. Fie ld refers to the
ongoing activity and the par ticular purpos e s that the use of language is
s erving within the conte xt o f that activity; te nor refers to the inte rre lations
among the participants (s tatus and role re lations hips ); a nd mode covers
roughly SHymes’ chanre U key and ge nre . T he re are s ome the or e tical a dva n­
tages to be gaine d fr om working with a tr iadic cons truct, advantage s which
relate to the nature o f the linguis tic s ys te m as sugge sted in chapte r 7.
T he cate gorie s o f fie ld, te nor and mode are thus de te r minants and not
compone nts o f s pe aking; colle ctive ly they serve to pr e dict te xt via the
inte rme diar y o f the code , o r (s ince ‘code* has be e n used in a numbe r of
diffe r e nt senses) to pre dict what is calle d the register (Ur e and Ellis 1972).
These concepts are inte nde d to make e xplicit the me a ns whe re by the
observer can de rive , from the speech s ituation, not the te xt itself, o f course,
but ce rtain systematic norms gove r ning the particulars o f the text. These
nor ms take n toge the r , cons titute the register. In othe r words, the various
subcate gorie s o f fie ld, te nor and mode have as sociate d with the m typical
s e mantic patte rns - on the as s umption, that is, o f what Fis hman calls c o n­
grue nce (1971a, 244- 5); so that if for a give n instance o f language use the
s ituational features are s pe cifie d, in appr opr iate te rms , typical Unguistic
features can be s pe cifie d by de r ivation fr om the m. (Note that we are c o n ­
ce rne d with the s e mantic prope rtie s o f the text and not with the ritual
le xtcogrammatical variants that are as sociate d with levels o f formality and
the like, although these for m one part o f the total pictur e .) If the obs e rve r
can pre dict the text fr om the s ituation, the n it is not s urpris ing if the
participant, or interacxant\ who has the s ame infor ma tio n available to him,
can derive the s ituation fr om the te xt; in othe r words , he can s upply the
relevant infor mation (hat is lacking. T hus the ^register' conce pt provide s a
me ans of inve s tigating the linguis tic foundations o f eve ryday social inte rac­
tion. from an angle that is comple me ntar y to the e thnome thodologic al one ;
it takes account o f the processes which link the fe ature s of the te xt, c o n ­
s idered as the re alization of s e mantic patte rns , lo the abs tract cate gorie s o f
the speech s ituation. It is these processes which e mbody the ‘native the ory
and system of s pe aking'.
How far are such conce pts re latable to the Linguistic system? The lit­
e rature o f s ocioUnguUtics a bounds with refe rence s to the Ungutsl's praciicc
o f tre ating the linguis tic system as an invar iant, by contr as t with the sociolin-
guis t’s intere st in var iation; but all linguists are inte re s te d in va r ia tion and
the dis tinction is a largely artificial one . T he unde r lying que s tion is that o f
the nature of linguis tic choice ; s pecifically, o f the various types o f choice ,
and the ir ac commodation and inte raction in the linguis tic s ysiem. T he
dis tinction is unfor tunate since it implie s that ‘code cVioicc* —in the sense o f
ntuaJ var iation, the choice o f appr opr ia te levels o f for mality etc. - is to be
iso] ated from othe r aspects o f choice . Sociolinguis tic discus s ions have ofte n
rested on the tacit as s umption that the re was nothing at all to be s aid about
 Sociological aspects o f s e mantic change 63

the choice be twe e n cat a n d dog - th a t is a matte r o f the system - whe re as a

dis tinct the ory was ne e de d to account for the choice be twe e n cat and m og
[mog be ing a s lang te r m for in ce rtain Britis h dialects] . But boxh these
choices are choice s that are made within the linguis tic s ys te m; what is
ne e de d is a the or y which accounts for both.
T his points in the dir e ction o f a func tiona l s e mantics , towards a furthe r
e labor ation o f the the orie s of the Prague s chool, who have always explicitly
conce rne d the ms e lve s with va r iation. Hyme s (1969, 113) re cognize s two
types of me aning, *s ocial m e a ning ’ a nd 're fe re ntial me a ning': ‘Language s
have conve ntional units s tructure s a nd re lations .. *that are what I s hall call
“ s tylis tic” (s e rving social me a ning) as we ll as r e fe r e ntial/ Els e whe re he uses
the te rm ‘socio- expressive’ for the for me r . In my own w or k 1 have us e d a
triadic system, with ide ational, inte rpe rs onal and te xtual compone nts (the
first two pr obably e quivale nt to Hyme s ’s re fe re ntial and s ocial)t the ide ­
ational be ing the n fur the r re s oluble into e xpe rie ntial and logical (HaMiday
1967c 1972), If we as s ume for the m o m e nt lh a t the linguis tic system is in
fact es s entially tr imodal a t iKe s e mantic level (a nd the re is s trong inte rnal
e vide nce for this ), the n on the basis o f the three- way cate gor ization of the
s ituational de te r minants o f text into fie ld te nor a nd mode , we can make a
te ntative corr e lation be twe e n the s ituat iont the te xt, a nd the s e mantic sys­
te m; by and large, it is the ide ationa l compone nt o f the system that is
activate d by the choice o f fie ld the inte rpe r s onal by the te nor, a nd the
te xtual by the mode . T he re is, in othe r words , a ge ne ral te nde ncy whe re by
the s pe ake r, in e ncoding the role re lations hips in the s ituation (the te nor;
Hyme s 's pa r ticipa nts ’ and ‘ke y’ dr aws on the inte r pe r s onal compone nt in
the s e mantic s yste m, r e alize d for e x ample by mood; in e nc oding the activity,
including s ubje ct- matte r (the fieJd; Hyme s ’s ‘setting* a nd ‘e nds ) draws on
the ide ational compone nt* re alize d for e xample by trans itivity; and in e ncod­
ing the fe ature s of the channe l, the r he torical mode and so on (the mode ;
Hyme s ’s 'ins tr unie nta iitks and *genreT) draws o n the te xtual co mpone nt,
realized for e xample by the infor ma tio n focus. Thes e are appr ox imations
only; but they are suggestive give n that the two sets of cate gorie s , the
compone nts o f the s pe e ch s ituation on the one ha nd a nd thos e o f the
s e mantic system on the othe r , are e s tablis he d inde pe nde ntly o f e ach othe r.
The following passage provide s an illus tration of this point; Nige l, at 1 year
11 months , is e xchanging me anings with his mothe r (Ho llida y 1975c):
Mother [in balhroom> Nigel sitting on chair]: Now you wait there till J get your
facecloth. Keep sitting there. [ But Nigel is already standing up on the chair]
Nigei [in exact imitation of mother’s intonation paue m, not in correcting into­
nation] : ICeep standing there. Pul the mug on the floor.
M other : Put the m ug on the flo o r ? Wh a t d o you w a nt?
Nigei' Daddy toothbrush.
M other: O h y o u w a nt Da ddy 's to othbr us h do you?
Nigel: Y^s . . . you [ = I] w a nt to p ut the fr o g in the mug.
M other 1 think ihe frog is too big fo r (he mug.
Nigei: Yes you can pul the duck in the mug . . - make bubble .. . make bubble.
64 A s ocios e miotic inte rpre tation o f language

M other T omor r ow . Ne arly all the wate r ’s r un out.

Nigel: Yo u want Mum m y re d to o thb r us h . . . yes you can have Mu m m y old red
to othbr us h.

We might ide ntify the s ituational fe ature s in s ome s uch te rms as the
foUowing;
Fie id: Pe rs onal toile t, assisted [ mothe r was hing child] ; concurr e ntly
[ child] e x plor ing (i) co ma ine r pr inciple (i.e. putting things in things ) and (ii)
owne r s hip and acquis ition o f prope rty (i.e . ge tting things that be long to
othe r pe ople )
T e nor: Motlre r and s mall child inte raction; mothe r de te r mining cours e of
action; child pur s uing own interests, s e e king pe r mis s ion; mothe r granting
pe rmis s ion and s har ing child*s interests- , bul ke e ping he r own cours e in vie w
M ode : Spoke n dia lo g ue ; pragmatic s peech (*language - in- action'), the
mothe r ’s guiding, the child’s fur the r ing {accompanying o r imme diate ly pr e ­
ce ding) Ihe actions to which it is appr opr iate ; coope rative , w it hout conflict
o f goals
Lo o king at the te xt, we find that the f ie ld te nds to de te r mine the trans itivity
patte rns - the types o f process, e.g. r e la tiona l clauses, possessive ig e tyhav e )
and circums tantiaJ: Jocativ^ {put} mate rial proce ss clauses, s patial: pos ture
{s ii s tand); als o the minor processes, e .g. cir cums tan(ial; locative (m );
pe rhaps the tenses (s im ple pre s e nt); and the conte nt aspect o f the vo-
cabuJary, e.g. na ming o f obje cts . All these be long to the ide ationa l c o m ­
pone nt o f the s e mantic system.
T he te nor te nds to de te r mine the patte rns o f mood, e.g. [ mother] impe r a­
tive (y ou w ait, keep s itiing) a n d o f modaLity, e .g. [ child] pe rmis s ion (w ant to,
c an and nonfinite forms s uch as m ak e b ub b le m e a n ing ‘I wa nt to be allowe d
to • . .’ also o f pe rs on, e .g. [ mothe r] *sccond person" (y o u ), [ child] 'firs t
pe r s on’ {y ou [ = /] ), a nd o f key, re pre s e nte d by the system o f intonat ion
(pitch contour, e.g, chiid's s ys te matic oppos ition o f rising* de ma nding a
respons e, versus falling, not de ma nding a re s pons e ). T he s e are all part of the
inte rpe rs onal compone nt.
T he m ode le nds to de te r mine the forms o f cohesion* e.g, ques tion-
and- ans wer with the as s ociate d type o f e llipsis {W hat do y ou w ant? - Daddy
toothbrus h); the patte rns o f voice and the me , c,g. active voice with child as
s ubje ct/thcme ; the forms o f de ixis, e .g. e xophor ic [ s ituation- referring] r/ie;
and the lexical continuity, e.g. r e pe tition o f m ug , toothbrus hy p u t in . All
these fall within the te xtual c ompone nt of the s e mantics .

1,3 T hus one main s trand in the s ociolinguis tic fabric consists in inte r r e ­
lations among the thre e levels o f (i) social inte r action, re pre s e nte d lin ­
guis tically by the text; (ii) the speech s ituation; and (iii)t h e linguis tic system.
T his inte r r e lations hip cons titute s the sys te matic aspect o f eve ryday speech.
From the s ociological po int o f vie w, the focus o f atte ntion here is on the
‘micr o’ level. By contras t, the ‘macro* le ve l involve s a fur the r clas s ifying o f
 Sociological aspects o f s e mantic change 65

speech s ituations , a s ituational typology such as is e mbodie d in Fis hman’s

notion o f ‘d o m a in ’ de fine d (1 971 a, 248) as 'the large- scale aggregative
re gularitie s that obtain be twe e n variable s a nd s ocietally re cognize d func ­
tions .' A macro- le ve l s ociology o f language pays atte ntion to a •more
ge ne r alize d de s cription o f s ociolinguis tic var iation’ in which ihe re is
as s ociation be twe e n a d o m a in a n the one hand and a specific varie ty or
language on the othe r , A d o m a in may be de fine d in te rms o f any of the
compone nts o f speech s ituation: for e x ample , in Paraguay ic is found that
Gua r a ni is used in settings which are rural, and, among the n o n r u r a ljn chose
which are (the inte rs e ction o f) no nfo r ma l, intimate and nons e rious . Spanis h
is used in s e ttings which are (the inte rs e ction of) urban a nd e ithe r forma] or,
if nonfo r ma l, non- intimate . If the s e tting is non rural, nonfo r mal, intimate
and s e rious the choice o f language de pe nds on othe r variable s : language
orde r (i.e. which was the mothe r tongue ), language proficie ncy and sex
(Ru b in 1968). He r e the s ituational crite ria are e xtre me ly mixe d. Ge ne r a l­
izations o f this kind involve the r e lating o f s ituation type s ‘upw a r d’ to the
ge ne ral ‘conte xt of cultur e ', in the sense in which tha t te rm was used by
Malinow s ki (L923).
T ypically in s uch 'macro- le ve l' de s cr iptions the conce rn is w iih c o m ­
munitie s whe re there is bilingualis m or multilingualis m, or at least some
form o f diglos s ia. The s hift tha t take s place is be twe e n language s ,or be twe e n
"high and lo w ’ classical and c olloquia l) varie ties o f the same language ; and
this is seen to reflect ce rtain br oad cate gorie s o f s ituational variable . T he
s ituational features that de te r mine 'code s hift may the ms e lve s be highly
specific in n a t u r e ; for e x ample Go r m a n , s tudying the use o f Englis h, Swahili
and the ve rnacular by s peakers o f eaght o f Ke nya’s m a jo r language s , found
that 'Swahili is characte ris tically us e d more fr e que ntly than Englis h in
conve rs ations with fathe rs a nd less fr e que ntly in conve rs ations with s iblings
although the re are e xce ptions . . ■ ’ (19 7 1 , 213) - e xce ptions which were in
turn partly re latable to the topic o f the conve rs ation.
It is ihe re lative impe r mane nc e of these s ituational factors which ie ads to
the phe nome non of ‘code - s witching’ which is code s hift actualize d as a
process within the individual: the s pe ake r move s fr om one code to anothe r,
and back, more or less rapidly, in the cours e o f daily life , and ofte n in the
course of a singJe s entence . Gum p e r z (1971) describes code shift and
code- switching as the e xpre s s ion o f social hie rarchy in its various forms ,
notably caste a nd s ocial cla&s. T he ve rbal re pe rtoire o f the s pe ake r, his cock
pote ntial, is a func tion o ft h e s ocial hie rarchy a n d o f his owti place in it; while
the par ticular conte xt o f inte raction, the s ocial- hie rarchical prope r tie s o f the
s itua tion de te rmine , within limits set by othe r variable s (a nd always allow*
ing for the individuaFs role dis cr e tion; the re is pe rs onal as well as tr ans ­
actional s witching, in Gu m p e r z’s te rms ), the s election that he make s from
within that re pe rtoire .
He nce this pa r ticular conce pt of a 4co de ', in the sense of a language or
language varie ty coe xis ting with othe r language s or language varie ties in a
(mult ilingua l a nd multidiale ctal) s ocie ty s uch that the individual typically
 66 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

controls more than one code , extends naturally and without dis continuity to
that of code as social diale ct - diale ctal varie ty in language that is re lated to
s ocial s tructure and s pe cifically to social hie rarchy. T he s ituation may
de te rmine which code one selects, but the s ocial s tructure de te rmine s which
codes one controls . T he limiting case w ould be an ide al diglos s ia in which
every me mbe r has access t o both the s upe rpos e d or 'h ig h var ie ty and one
re gional o r low * varie ty. In g e ne r a l howe ve r, the s pe ake r's s ocial dialect
re pertoire is a func tion o f his pe rs onal caste or class his tory.
T he ore tically a social diale ct is like a r e gional dia le c t in that it can be
treate d as invar iant in the life his tory o f the s pe ake r. T his in faci us e d to be
re garde d as the nor m. In practice , howe ve r, it is mis le ading; as Labov
re marks in this conne ction (1970a, 170): "As far as we can see, the re are no
single- style s pe ake r s / Labov refers to *style s hift’ r athe r than 4code s hift1,
unde r s tanding by this a shift in re spe ct o f ce r tain spe cifie d var iable s that is
gove rne d by one pa r ticular s ituational re s traint, name ly the level of for ­
mality. T he variable s he finds are gr ammatical and phonological one s , such
as the presence or absence of be in c opula r cons tructions , e .g. he [£s] wild\
negative concord, as dis playe d in the music- hall Cockne y se nte nce I d o n ’t
suppose y ou d o n 7 k now no b o dy w hat don t w ant to buy no d o g o r its
abs e nc e ;^ \ ,t0 v .t in initial pos ition, e .g. in th in k ; pJus or minus pos tvocalic
r e tc. La bov s w or k has s hown that one cannot de fine a s ocial diale ct, at lease
in an urban conte xt, e xce pt by having recourse to variable rules as well as
cate gorical rules; in ocher words , variation mus t be seen as inhe r e nt in the
system. La bo v’s own e ar lie r de finition o f an ur ban s peech c ommunity, as a
gr oup of s peakers s haring the s ame linguis tic attitude s , which he arrive d at
after finding (hat speech attitude s were more cons is te nt than speech habits,
could the re foT e ,in the light of his own s tudie s of va r ia tion be re vis e d to read
*a gr oup of speakers s howing the same patte rns o f variation* - which means ,
in tur n, re ins tating its or iginal de finition as a gr oup o f s peakers who share
the same social diale ct, since s ocial diale ct is now de fine d so as to include
such var iation (cf. Wo lfr a m 1971).
Howe ve r, as La bo v re marks , although 'the re are a gre at many styles and
stylistic dimensions- .. .a ll s uch styles can be range d along a s ingle dim e ns ion,
m e as ure d by the am o unt o f atte ntion p aid to spe e ch (1 9 7 0 a ). He nce , for
e xample , the five stylistic levels that are pos tulate d in orde r to show up
variation in post vocalic r: cas ual s peech, care ful spe e ch, r e ading word lists
and minimaJ pairs . In othe r wo ⼁丨 Ss the type o f linguis tic var iation that is
associated with these conte xts , thr oug h the 'a mo unt o f atte ntion paid to
s peech’ is itself largely homoge ne ous ; it can be re pre s e nte d in the for m o f
points along a scale of de viation fr om an implie d nor m, the nor m in this case
be ing a prestige or 's ta nda r d1 form. T he s pe ake r is not s witching be tween
alte rnative forms that are e qually de viant a nd thus ne utr al with re gard to
prestige norms (contras ting in this respect with rural s peakers in diale ct
boundar y are as ). He is s witching be twe e n var iants that are value- charged:
they have diffe r e ntial value s in the social system. This by no me ans neces­
sarily implie s th a t the s o- calle d‘pre s tige ’ forms are mos t highly value d for alt
 Sociological aspects of s e mantic change 67

groups in all contexts (La b o v 1970a 2 0 4 ) but s imply that the effect o f s uch
variation, o n linguis tic change cannot be s tudie d in is olation from the social
system which de te r mine s the sets o f value s unde r lying the var iation.

1.4 Dis cus s ion o f language and social s tructure us ually ce ntre s ar ound the
influe nce o f social s tructure on language ; but in Labov's perspective any
such effect is ma r ginal in te rms of the linguis tic system as a whole . *The gre at
major ity of linguis tic rule s are quite re mote from any social va lue ’ *social
value s are attr ibute d to linguis tic rule s only whe n the re is va r ia tion’ (1970a,
204- 5), In othe r words , there is interact ion be twe e n s ocial hie rarchy a nd
ce rtain features o f the diale ctal varie tie s that it gives rise to, s uch tha t these
fe ature s are the obje ct of var iation; but no ge ne ral principle s re lating
language and language varie ty to the social orde r.
Such principle s are to be found, in a ve ry diffe r e ni pe rs pe ctive , in the work
o f Be r ns te in, He r e ihe social structure , and social hie rarchy, is s hown to be
re late d to varie ty in language ; not to social diale ct, howe ve r, b ut to register.
T his dis tinction is a fundame nta l one . Whe r e as social diale cts are diffe r e nt
gr ammatical and phonological re pre s e ntations of a s e mantic system, regis­
ters are diffe r e nt s e mantic configur ations (le aving ope n the que s tion
whe the r the y ar e de rive d fr om ide ntical s e mantic systems o r not). He nce
Be r ns te in's focus o f a tte ntion is the re lation o f s ocial s tructure to me a ning -
that is, to the me anings that are typically expres s ed by the me mbe rs .
Be rns te in (1971) has dr awn a tte ntion to principle s o f s e miotic o r g a n­
ization gove r ning the choice o f me anings by the s pe ake r and the ir inte rpr e ­
tation by the hearer. These he refers to as *codesT; a nd the re is a cons ide rable
source o f confus ion here, as the s ame te rm 4code" is be ing used in radically
diffe r e nt senses. T he code s c ontr ol the me anings the s pe ake r*he are r atte nds
to (cf. Cicoure Ps ‘s ocially dis tr ibute d me anings ). In te rms o f our ge ne ral
pictur e , the code s act as de te r minants o f register, o pe r a ting o n the s e le ction
o f me anings within s ituation types: whe n the systemics of language - the
or de r e d sets of options that cons titute the linguis tic s ys te m- ar e activate d by
the s ituational de te r minants of text (ihe fie ld, te nor a nd mode , or whacever
conce ptual fr ame wor k we are us ing) this process is r e gulate d by the code s .
A unique feature o f Be r ns ie in’s work is tha t it suggests how the social
structure is re pre s e nte d in linguis tic inte r action. Ac c or ding to Be rns te in, the
e s s e ntial e le me nt gove rning access to the codes is the family role system the
system o f role re lations hips w it hin the fa mily; and he finds two main types,
the pos itional role system, and the pe rs onal role system* In the forme r, the
part playe d by the me mbe r (for e xample in de cis ionmaking) is largeEy a
func tion o f his pos ition in the family: role corre s ponds to as cribed status . In
the latte r, it is more a func iion of his ps ychological qua litie s as an individual;
here status is achie ve d and typically the re are ambiguitie s of role . The two
types are found in all s ocial classes* but sections o f the middle class favour
the pe rs on- orie nte d types and s trongly pos itional familie s are fo und mainly
in the lowe r wor king class; thus the re is a me chanis m for the effect o f social
class on language , via the inte r r e lation o f class and family type.
68 A sociose miotic inte rpre tation o f language

Be rns te in pos tulate s two var iable s within the code : e laborate d versus
re s tricte d and pe rs on- oriente d versus obje ct- orie nte d. The ide alize d
s ociolinguis tic speaker- hearer would comr ol e qually all varie tie s of code ;
the re is of course no s uch individual, but che processes o f s ocialization o ft h e
child do de ma nd ⼀一and nor mally le a d to - some degree of access to a ll It
appe ars howe ve r that s ome extre me family type s te nd to limit access to
ce rtain parts o f the code system in ce r tain critical s ocializing conte xis : a
s trongly pos itional family, for e x a mple may orie nt its me mbe rs away from
the pe rs onal, e la bor ate d system in precisely thos e conte xts in which this type
o f code is de mande d by the processes of for mal e ducation, as e ducation is at
present cons titute d - which may be a contr ibutor y factor in the strongly
social- class- linked patte rn o f e duca tional failure that is found in Br itain, the
U S A and elsewhere.
It is impor tant to avoid re ifying the code s, which are not varie tie s of
language in the sense that registers and social diale cts are varie tie s of
language . T he r e lation o f code to these othe r conce pts has be e n discussed by
Ruqa iy a Has an, who points o ut that the code s are locate d ‘a bove ’ the
linguis tic system, at the s e miotic level (19 73, 258):
Wh ile s ocial diale ct is de fine d by re fe re nce to its dis tinctive for ma l prope rtie s ,
the code is d e fine d by rcfe re tice to its s e mantic pr ope rtie s . . . che s e mantic
properties of the codes can be predicted from the elements of social structure
w hic h, in fa c i, give rise t o the m. T his rais e s the conce pt ‘c ode ’ to a mor e ge ne ral
level than that of language variety; indeed there are advantages in regarding (he
re s tricte d a nd the e labor ate d code s as code s o f be havio ur , whe re the word
'behaviour* covers both verbal and nonverbal behaviour.
The code is actualize d in language thr ough register, the clus te ring of
s e mantic fe ature s according to s ituation type . (Be r ns te in in fact uses the
te rm ‘va r iant’ e.g. 'e laborate d v a r ia n t , (o re fe r to thos e characteris tics o f a
register which de rive from the choice o f code .) But the code s the ms e lve s are
types o f social s e miotic, s ymbolic orde rs of me aning ge ne r ate d by the social
system. He nce they trans mit, o r rathe r contr ol the trans mis s ion of, the
unde r lying patte rns o f a cultur e and s ubcultur e , acting thr ough the primary
s o c ia lizin g ag e ncie s o f fa m ily p e e r gTOup a n d s c h o o l.
A t this point we can pe rhaps set u p s ome sort of a mode l in which the
linguis tic system, and the s ocial system in its restricted sense o f social
structure* are re pre s e nte d as inte gral parts o f the wide r re ality of the social
system in the more at l- embracing sense of the te rm. For analytical purpos es
we will add a thir d c o m po ne nt’ that o f ‘culture* in the sense o f the ide ological
and mate rial cuJture , to serve as the s ource o f s peech s ituations and s ituation
types. Malinows ki's context of culture (a nd conte xt o f s ituation) is the
product o ft h e s ocial s tructure toge the r with the culture in this limite d sense;
so arc Fis hman's domains . Figure 4 (above the line ) atte mpts to pre s e nt in
s che matic form the analytic re lations that we have set up.

1.5 Natur ally the re are othe r compone nts o f a s ociolinguis tic the ory which
 Sociological as pects o f s e mantic change 69

are not include d in this s ummar y. Am o n g othe r things , a s ociolinguis tic

the ory implie s a the ory of text: not me re ly a me thodology o f text de s crip­
tion, buc a me ans o f r e lating the text to its various levels o f me aning. In van
Dijk ’s (1 9 72 ) account of a *texi grammar*, text is re garde d as 'continuous
dis cours e 1 having a de e p o r macro- structure 'as a whole * a n d a s urface or
micro- structure as a s e que nce o f sente nce s ; a set of tr ans for mation rules
relates macro- to micro- structures. In othe r words , text is the basic linguis tic
unit, manife s te d at the s urface as discourse . It cannot be de s cribe d by me ans
o f sentence grammar s .

•ChiId Ii ngut Stic %ylte<vy

Fig. 4 Schematic representatton of language as social semiotic. and child's mode of

access to it
70 A s ocios e mioiic in(e rpr e taiion o f language

Now the last point is worth unde r lining. The notion of the text as a
super- sentence is es s e ntially compar able co that o f the se nte nce as a super-
phone me ; it ignores the essential fact that the two are re lated by re alization,
not by size* We have adopte d here the vie w o f the text as a s e mantic u n it
irrespective o f s ize > with sentence s (and othe r gr ammatical units ) as the
re alization o f it. The es s e ntial pr oble m, (he n, is that of r e la ting not ‘macro*
10 'micro* s tructure s (which diffe r in s ize ) but one level (s tr atum) to
anothe r; o f re lating the te xt not only ‘downwar ds to the sentence s which
re alize it b ut also ‘upwards 1 to a highe r level of me aning, of which it is itself
ihe re alization or pr oje ction. T ypically in a s ociolinguis tic conte xt, this
refers to the s ociological me anings lh a t are re alize d by texts of e ve ryday
conve rs ation, pe r haps especially those involving the text in its role in c ul­
tural trans mis s ion; but these are not essential ly diffe r e nt in kind fr om othe rs
such as narrative s (van Dijk 1972, 273ff; cf. Labov and Wale tzky 1967;
Gr e imas 1971) including childr e n's narrative s , and eve n literary texts.
T o say that s ociolinguis tics implie s a the ory of text is to say no more than
that it implie s a linguis tic the ory, one which me e ts the us ual r e quir e me nt o f
s pecifying both system and process, in Hje lms le v’s sense o f the te rms , at all
levels (cf. Dix o n 1965). T he sentences, clauses and so on which for m the
mate rial of everyday linguis tic inte raction (mate r ial that is alre ady o f
cours e, highly processed, once it can be re fe rre d to in these te rms ) are to be
inte rpre te d both as r e alizations a nd as instances: as the re alization o f me a n­
ings which are ins tance s o f the me aning pote ntia l. T he me a ning pote ntial is a
functional pote ntial; the analysts o f text is in the las t resort als o functional,
be ing such as to relate the text to the functional compone nts o f the s e mantic
system, ide ational, inte rpe rs onal and te xtual (or othe r s uch frame o f re fe r­
e nce ). These functional compone nts provide the channe l whe re by the
unde rlying me anings are proje cte d onto the text, via the s e mantic c on­
figurations that we are calling registers, I s hall not complicate the e xpos ition
furthe r by trying to include in it specific refe rence to the var ious othe r orde rs
o f me aning, iite rary, ps ychological and so for th, that are pr oje cte d onto the
s e mantic system and the re by o nto the te xt.1 But I s hould like lo add one
more dime ns ion to the picture . T his conce rns the le a r ning o f language by the
child, as this process appe ars in the light o f a s ociolinguis tic inte r pr e tation o f
language de ve lopme nt (Ha llida y 1975a).

/ .6 A child le ar ning his mothe r tongue is cons tructing a me acting pote ntial:
that is, he is cons tructing a s e mantic system, toge the r with its re alizations .
T his process seems to take place in thre e phases, o f which the middle one is
functionally tr ans itional. T he child be gins (Phas e I) by de ve loping a se miotic
o f his own, which is not de rive d fr om the a dult linguis tic system that
s urrounds him; it is a language whos e e le me nts are s imple con-
■Se e in th is c o n n e c t io n Z u m t h o r ' s c h a r a c t e r iz a t io r i o f m e d ie v a l p o e t r y (1 9 7 2 , 1 7 1 ): ^Nom-
brcuses sont (es texies ou I'une -des deux fonctions, id^ationnelle ou interpersonnelie, domine
a bs o lu m e a t . a u p o in t d 'e ^t o m p e r , p a r fo is d 'e ffa c e r pr e &que le s e ffc ts d e r a u u c . C ' c s i H m e
s cmble - t- il, u n tr a it fo n d a m e n ia l d e la p o e s ie m ^d ie v a le .*
 Sociological aspects o f s e mantic change 71

te nt/e xpre s s ion pairs, having me aning in ce r tain cultur ally de fine d and
poss ibly unive rs al functions . These functions can be e nume r ate d te ntative ly
as follows ins tr ume ntal, re guiatory, inte ractional,, pe rs onal, heuristic, im ­
aginative . Figure 5 shows Nig e l’s protolanguage at 104 months (KaUiday
1975 a). Such expre s s ions owe nothing to ihe mothe r tongue ; this is the stage
at which, in many folklore s , the child can talk to animals a nd to spirits,
but aduJts cannot jo in in.
T he n come s a dis continuity, r ound about 18 months : a point where the
child ceases to re capitulate phylogctiy and l>egins to a dopt the adult mode l.
Fr om now on the speech ar ound him, the (ext- m- situation which is a more or
less cons tant fe ature o f his waking e nvir onme nt, come s to de te r mine his
language de ve lopme nt. He is e mba r ke d on a mastery o f the aduJt system,
which has an additiona l level of coding in i(: a gr a mma r (inc iuding a vo ­
cabulary), inte r me diate be twe e n its me anings and its s ounds .
Functionally* howe ve r, there is no dis continuity; language continue s to
function for the child in the s ame conte x ts as be fore . But the inte r pola tion o f
a gr ammatical system, be sides vas tly incre as ing the numbe r o f possible
me anings which the system is capable o f s toring, als o at the s ame time ope ns
up a new pos s ibility, tha t o f funclionai c ombina tion: it be come s possible to
me an more than one thing a t once* Ho w doe s the c hild he lp hims e ff ove r this
s tage ? Nige l d id it by ge ne r alizing fr om his func tion set an oppos ition
be twe e n language as doing a nd language as le ar ning: the pragmatic function
versus the mathe tic func tion’ as I calle d it. In s ituational terms, the pr ag­
matic is that which de ma nds some (ve r bal or nonve r bal) re sponse; the
mathe tic is s elf*sufficient and doe s not re quire a respons e. Nige l happe ne d
to make this dis tinction totally e xplicit by me ans o f intonation, pr oducing all
pragmatic utte rance s on a rUing tone and all mathe tic one s on a falling tone ;
that was his particular strategy. But the image o f language as having a
pragmatic a nd a mathe tic pote ntial may re pre s e nt every child's ope rational
mode l o f the system at this stage.
Pr obably mos t childre n e nte r Phas e IL o f the language - le arning process
with some such two- way func tiona l or ie nta tion, or gr id; and this functional
grid, we may assume, acts selective ly on the input o f text- in- situation, as a
s e mantic fille r r e je cting thos e particulars that are not inte rpr e table in terms
o f it s e lf a nd acce pting those which as it we re re sonate at its own func tiona l
fre que ncie s . It is pe rhaps wor th stressing he re , in vie w of the pre vailing
notion o f uns tructur e d or de ge ne rate input, tha t the utte rance s the child
hears ar ound him are typically both richly s tructure d a nd highly gr a m­
matical, as we ll as be ing s ituationally re le vant (cf. La bov 1970a); the
child doe s not lack for e vide nce on which to build up hts me a ning pote n­
tial.
In Phas e II the child is in tr ans ition to the a dult system. He has mas te re d
the principle o f an inte r me diate , le x icogrammatical level of coding; and he
has also mas te re d the pr inciple of dialogue ^ name ly the adoption, as­
s ignme nt and acce ptance (o r non- acce ptance ) of communicative roles,
which are social roles o f a special kind thos e that come into be ing only
72 A s ocios e miotic ime r pr e tation o f language

through language . The s e miotic substance of the pragmatic/maihe tic dis­

tinction, be twe e n language as doing and language as le a r ning has now be e n
incorporate d into the grammar , in the fo r m o f ihe func tiona l dis tinction
be twe e n inte rpe rs onal and ide ational in the a dult system. These latte r are
the 'meeafunctions^ o f the adult language ; the abs tract compone nts o f the
semancic system which corr e s pond to the two bas ic e xtrins ic functions o f
language (thos e which Hyme s calls "s ociar and *re fe rentia ⼚厂cf. above ). At
the same time the child be gins to build in the thir d c o mpo ne nt the 'te xtual'
one ; this is what make s it pos s ible to create text, language that is s tructure d
in re lation to the conte xt o f its use (the ‘conte xt of s ituat ion1). These three
compone nts are cle arly dis tinct in the sy s te m'as sets o f opUons having s trong
internaJ but we ak e xte r nal cons traints .
He re is the source of the comple x nature o f linguis tic ‘func tion,, which
causes some difficulty in the inte r pr e tation o f func tiona l the orie s of la n­
guage, yet which is a ma jo r characte ris tic o f the adult s e miotic. O n the one
ha nd, 'func tion' refers to the social me a ning of s pe e ch acts, in conte xts of
language use; on ihe othe r h a n d Tit refers to compone nts o f me aning in the
language system, de te r mining the inte r nal or g a niza tion o f the system itself.
But the two are re late d s imply as actual to pote ntial; the system is a pote ntial
for use. T he linguis tic system is a s ociolinguis tic system.
At (his stage then, the ge ne r alize d functions which serve as the basis for
various strategies whe re by a child can le arn the me anings of the adult
language gradually e volve thr ough three stages* A l first, (hey are al­
te rnative s : at (s ay) 1 8 months , every utte rance is e ithe r one or the othe r
(either mathe tic or pr agmatic), T he n the y be come diffe re nce s of e mphas is :
at (s ay) 21 months , e ve ry utte rance is pr e domina ntly one or the
mathe tic/ide ational but als o pragmatic/inte rpe r s onal; o r vice versa). Finally
they come to be combine d; at (s ay) 24 monrhs , e very utte rance is both (both
ide ational inte rpe rs onal). Wh a t make s this pos s ible is that both come to
be expressed thr ough the le xicogrammatical system; the ‘func tions have
change d the ir characte r, to be come abs tract compone nts o f the s e mantics ,
s imultane ous mode s o f me aning each o f which pre s uppos e s tjie presence of
the orher. An d this appa r e ntly is what e nable s the child to structure the input
which he receives so that any one text come s to be inte rpr e te d as a com*
bination o f the same kind. T o put this anothe r way, be ing hims e lf (a t first) on
any one occas ion e ithe r obs e rve r or intr ude r , he can gras p the fact that the
a dult language allows the s pe a ke r —inde e d oblige s him - t o be both observer
and intr ude r at the same lime . Whe n these processes o f functional de ve lop­
me nt are comple te d, the child has e ffe ctive ly e nte r e d the a d uh language
system; the final phas e . Phas e III, consists in mas te r ing the adult language .
Pha&e III. o f cours e continue s thr oughout life,
I have atte mpte d to incorpor ate the de ve lopme ntal compone nts o f the
s ociolinguis tic unive rs e of discourse into figure 4 (p. 69 ); this is the part
t>eJow the horizontal line . The double ve rtical ba r cros s cutting this line ,
towards the le ft, re presents the po int o f dis continuity in the expression^
whe re the child be gins to ta k e o v e r the gr ammar a nd phonology o f the aduh
FUNCTION CONTENT SYSTEM S

demand, general
Inslrunwntal
de mand, specific (toy bird}

⼚厂 owmal
Regulatory
L c o m nna nd, in te n a ilie il

normai (Irtendiy)

In te r a d io o a l
r initiation
-[ (tiTtpatfent)

res|iOMSd
geoer相
C s pe c ific ^m ove rpe nt)
「p*rt*ci| Wlioo
genial
Pysonal pleasure C td ^ c M (lASie )

^wiindrawdi

Mof» AK to r^t an faOnp , M K a t M lle m s nW M *n both m M r # ^ «n d

FI9 . 5 Nigel at 0: 9 to 0: 10i

E XP RE S S IO N : GLOSS
Ar tic ula tio n Tone

ni ■
*- mid
be m id g iv e m « m y bird

9 m id do that <agair)

mnQ w啦;# d o th a t right now !

narrow nice to see you ($

mid shaM w « kook a t thi&
to g *th «r ?)
«nnn m id n ic e to s e e y o u —a t
tost,
C9 low y »s it s m0

0 tow th a t's inte r e s ting

b be : 0 h>w lo o ^ it's m o v in g
(? 9 dog. M $)
a tow thaf$ nice

low tftat ta$ies ntoe

g w ^| * “ na rrow tVnsld€py
low
74 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

language . In the conte nt, there is a r apid e xpans ion fr om this point on - but
no e s s e ntial dis continuity.

2 Variation and change

2.1 Much o f the work re fe rre d to above e mbodie s a conce pt o f var iaiion.
T ypically this refers to variation be twe e n diffe re nt forms oflangua ge within
a speech community: be twe e n language s o r ma jo r s ublanguage s , be twe e n
dialects, and be twe e n speech styles (i.e . minor diale ctal variants , in La b o v’s
sense of the te r m). If we dis tinguis h te rmmologically be twe e n varie ty,
me aning the existence of (diale ctal, e tc.) varie tie s , a nd var iation, me a ning
the move me nt be twe e n varie tie s (i.e. varie ty as the s tate, var iation as the
process), the n the individual s pe ake r dis plays var iation (tha t is switche s)
unde r ce r tain s ociolinguis tic c o ndit io ns ; in the typical ins tance , thes e c o n ­
d itio ns re late to the le ve l o f fo r m a lity (de gr e e o f a tt e n tio n p a id to s pe e ch, in
La b o v fo r mula tion), role r e lations hips , topic of discourse a nd so on. But
there may be varie ty without var iation: this w o uld be the ide alize d form o f
the s ituation s tudie d in rural diale ctology, whe re diale cts exist but me mbe rs
do not switch be twe e n them*
Jus t as there may be varie ty without var iation, so also there may be
var iation without change . Labov has de mons tr ate d the existence o f this kind
o f s table var iation, whe re the variants e ithe r are not charge d with social
value or else are the obje ct o f conflicting value s which, as it we re cancel e ach
othe r out - a low- presiige for m may als o have s olidarity function, pe rhaps .
But while var iation doe s not always imply change^ it is us ually pre s ume d to
be a fe ature o f s ociolinguis tic change - change that is re lated to social
phe nome na - that it is pre ce de d by, and arises out of, va r iation, s uch
var iation be ing a pr oduct o f the inteTactiDn o f language with the social
system. La b o v’s for mula tion is as follows (1 97 0a, 205):
】
n the cours e o f change , the re are ine vita bly variable rule s , a n d the s e are as o f
variability tend to travel through the system in a wave- tike motion. The leading
e dge o f a par ticular linguis tic change is us ually w ithin a s ingle gr oup, and wich
successive generations the newer form moves out in wider circles to other
groups, Lingu istic in dicato rs which show social distribution but no style shift [i.e.
variety without variation] represent early stages of tKis process. Markers which
show both stylistic and social siratification represent the development of social
reaction to the change and the attribution of social value to the variants con­
cerned. Stereoiypes, which have risen to full social consciousness, may represent
olde r cas e&of va r ia tion which may in fact have gone to c o m ple tio n; o r the y may
actually represent stable oppositions of linguistic fo rm s supported by two oppos­
ing s<ts of underlying social values.

T ake n as a whole , linguis tic change involve s , in La b o v ’s words , ‘os cillation

be twe e n inte rnal pressures a nd inte raction with the social s ys te m'; it
includes* but is no t limite d t o change o f a ‘s ociolinguis tic’ kind. T he inte rnal
pressures Labov sees, as othe r linguists have done , as a ^process o f s tructural
 Sociological as pects o f s e mantic change 75

ge ne r alization’ to be e xplaine d as a kind o f grammatico- s e mantic e quilib­

rium in which ‘there is ine vitably s ome oihe r s tructural change to c o m ­
pensate for the loss o f infor mation involve d’ (1 970 a, 183), An e xample
given is that, in T r inidad Englis h, the past tense gave was re place d by the
present fo r m giv e y a nd the re fore the for m do giv e was intr oduce d to dis ­
tinguis h pre s e nt fr om past: ins te ad of / giv e /I gave^ the same syscem is
re alize d as / do g iv e " giv e .
The as s umption appe ars to be that, while s ociolinguis tic change takes
place in the e xpre s s ion, at the gr ammatical a n d phonological levels it cannot
affe ct the conte nt: the s e mantic system re mains unchange d. (Sociolinguis tic
change s in the e xpre s s ion are us ually pre s e nte d not as change s in the system
but as micros copic change s affe cting ce rtain e le me nts o f the system, the
implic ation be ing tha t it is the pure ly inte rnal me chanis rm that br ing about
change in the system - inc luding the change that is re quire d to re gulate the
balance which has be e n impair e d by s ocially co nditione d change s affe cting
its e le me nts . But, as Labov hims e lf has pointe d o ut elsewhere (197L), it is
difficult to make a very cle arcut dis tinction be twe e n the sysiem and its
e le me nts .) If this is to be unde r s tood 5n the limite d sense that s e mantic
change s are no t br ought abo ut by accide ntal ins tance s o f mor phologic al or
phonological s yncretis m, it pre s umably applie s whe the r or not such
instances are inte rpr e te d as the outc ome of social processes; this que s tion is
clearly be yond o ur pre s e nt scope* Bu t if it is take n more ge ne rally to me an
that there are no othe r for ms o f linguis tic change involving re lations be t­
we e n the social system a nd the linguis tic system, this would seem ope n to
challe nge , since it exclude s the pos s ibility o( change s of a s ocios e mantic
kind.
Se mantic change is an area in which no very cle ar boundar y can be
ma inta ine d be twe e n change that is inte rnal and change that is socially
conditione d, although the two are in principle dis tinguis hable ; it bears out
Hoe nigs wakT s obs e r vation (19 71, 473) that ‘T he inte r nal a nd the e xte rnal
factors in linguis tic change are de ns e ly inte rtwine d, b ut n o t . , , ine xtricably
so•’ T he existence o f s e mantic varie ty is tr aditionally take n for grante d in
language and culture studies; but the i nstances that can be cite d o f culturally
conditione d s e mantic change are quite limite d in the ir scope. These change s
arc typically fairly mic r o s c opic , a ffe c ting s pe cific s ubs ys te ms , e s pe cially
those conce r ne d with the linguis tic e xpre s s ion o f s ocial status and role ; a
well- known e xample is F r ie dr ic h’s <1966) study o f Rus s ian kin terms, re lat­
ing the change s in the numbe r a nd kind of kins hip te rms in ge ne ral use to
change s in the s tructure of social re lations hips in Rus s ian society. Se mantic
fie ld theory> which take s the cham p de s ignification as the cons tant and
e xamine s the change s in the me aning o f the e le me nts of the s ubsystem
within it* als o le nds its e lf to s ociocultur al e x planations (T rie r's classic ex-
ampie of the fie ld o f "knowing" in me die val Ge r ma n). But it seems unlike ly
that we s hould e xpe ct to find* at the s e mantic le ve l, ‘s ociolinguis tic change s
o f a more general or macros copic kind.
Howe ve r, it is not so much ma jo r shifts in the linguis tic system that are in
76 A sociose miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

que s tion, as linguis tic change s which re late to ge ne ral fe ature s o f the social
s ys te m, o r to s ociological cons tr ucts t h a t have I he ir o w n va lidity a pa r t fr om
be ing me re ly a for m o f the e x pla na tion of linguis tic phe nome na. T he re are
two types o f fairly pervasive s e mantic change the one we ll re cognize d, the
othe r more proble matical, that come (o mind here. The first is the large- scale
intr oduction o f ne w vocabulary, as in pe r iods of r apid te chnical innova tion;
the othe r is change in what Wh o r f calle d ^fashions o f s pe aking’ or s e mantic
styles.
T he first of these processes is characte rize d by the appe arance in the
language o f a large numbe r of pre vious ly non- existent thing*me anings :
obje cts , processes, r e lations and so for th, re alize d by a varie ty o f me ans in
the le Nicogrammatical s tructure inc luding - b ut not limite d to - the cre ation
o f vocabulary. (T o call this process in t r o d u c t io n o f ne w vocabular y’ is a
mis le ading for mulation; r athe r it is the intr oduc tion of ne w thing- me anings ,
which may or may not be expressed by ne w le xical e le me nts .) One major
source o f ins ight imo this process is pla nne d s ociolinguis tic change , in the
ge ne ral conte xt o f language planning. T he key conce pt in Language planning
is that o f "de ve loping a language '. It is not e ntire ly cle ar in which sense
•de ve lop’ is be ing us e d here: doe s it imply that there are unde r de ve lope d
language s (in which case no do ubt they s hould be re fe rre d to a s ‘de ve loping’
language s - but the linguis tic dis tinction be twe e n de ve lope d language s and
othe rs is a very dubious one ), or s hould the te rm be inte rpr e te d r athe r in the
sense of de ve loping a film, br inging out w ha i is alre ady late ntly the re ?
Howe ve r that may be, 'de ve loping a la ngua ge 1typically refers to vocabulary
e xte ns ion, the cr e ation of ne w te rms by s ome age ncy such as a commis s ion
on te r minology, or at least in the cours e o f some officially s pons ore d activity
such as the pr oduc tion o f re fe re nce works a nd te xtbooks .
Wha t is the e s s e ntial natu re o f sueh change , whe n vie we d fr om a linguis tic
s ta ndpoint? Hauge n (1 9 6 6 ) refers to it as 'e labor ation o f func tionT, a nd the
re le vant conce pt is, pre s umably, a func tiona l one : the language is to func ­
tion in ne w settings, types o f s ituation to which it has pre vious ly be e n
unadapte d. T his is ce rtainly a trve pe rspe ctive . B u t it is r e markable how
little is yet known about the processes involve d, e s pe cially a tw ut the natur al
processes o f func tiona l a daptation in non- western language s . T he re is a
fairly extensive lite rature o n te chnical innova tion in Eur o pe a n Languages,
tracing the de ve lopme nt of indus trial a nd othe r te r minologie s (e .g. We xle r
1955^ on the e volution o f Fre nch railway te r minology); and on te chnical
vocabularie s as the y are found in existence in language s eve rywhe re (fo lk
tax onomie s ; e .g. Fralce 1961; Co n k lin 1968; Bas s o 1967). But s tudie s o f
innovation in non- Europe an language s are rare. A notable e x ample is Bh.
Kr is hnamur thi's (1962) work on T e lugu inve s tigating how the me mbe rs o f
farming, fis hing a nd we aving communitie s incor por ate new thing- tne anings
—new te chnique s , ne\ ^ apparatus and e quipme nt —into the ir own linguis tic
resources.

2 2 T his leads us into the second he ading, tha t of fas hions o f s pe aking. It is
 Sociological aspects o f s e mantic change 77

ofte n held» at least implicitly, that the s e mantic styles associated wnh (he
var ious registers o f the ‘world languages*, s uch as te chnical Englis h or
Rus s ian, or political Fre nch, are ins e parable fr om the te rminologie s , and
have to be introduce d along with the m whe re ve r the y trave l. Ce n a in ly it is a
common re proach agains i s pe ake rs a nd writers us ing a newly cre ate d te r ­
minology that the y te nd to de ve lop a kind of ktranslationese\ a way o f
me aning that is de rive d fr om Englis h or whate ve r s e cond language is the
main s ource o f innovation^ rathe r than fr om the language they are us ing. No
do ubt it is easier to imitate than to create in the de ve loping language
s e mantic configur ations which incorpor ate the new te rminological matte r
into e xis iing s e mantic slyles. But this is no t exactly (he point at issue. T he re is
no re as on to expect all ide ologie s to be mo de lle d o n the s e miotic s tructure o f
Standar d Ave r age Eur ope a n; there are othe r m o de s o f me aning in lite rature
than the poe try and the dr ama o f Re nais s ance Eur ope , and it will not be
s urpris ing to find diffe re nce s in othe r genres als o, inc luding the various fields
o f inte lle ctual activity. This is not to suggest lha t the s e mantic styles r e main
static. The alte rnative in the de ve lopme nt o f a language is not that o f e ithe r
be coming Eur ope a n o r s taying as it is; it is that o f be coming Eur ope a n or
be coming s ome thing else, more closely follow ing its own e xis ting patte rns of
e volution.
It is very unlike ly that ane part of the s e mantic system w ould re main
totally is olate d fr om anothe r ; whe n new me anings are be ing cre ate d on a
large scale, we s hould expect some change s in the fas hions o f s pe aking. It is
far from clear how these take place ; but it is ce rtainly quite inade quate to
inte rpre t the innovations s imply as change s in s ubje ct matte r . The change s
that are br ought about in this way involve me dia ' genres par ticipants and
pa r tic ipa nt r e lations , all the c o m po ne nts o f the s itua tion. Ne w regis ters are
cr e ate d which activate new alignme nts and configur ations in the functional
compone nts o f the s e mantic system. It is thr ough the inte rme diar y of the
social s tructure (hat the s e mantic change is br ought about. Se mantic style is a
function o f social re lations hips and s ituation type s ge ne rate d by the social
s tructure . If it change s , this is no t so much be cause o f what pe ople are now
s pe aking about as be cause of who they ar e s pe aking to, in what cir­
cums tance s , thr ough what me dia a nd so on. A shift in ihe fas hions of
s pe aking will be be tte r unde r s tood by refe rence to changing patte rns o f
social inte raction and social re lations hips than by the search for a direct link
be twe e n the language and the mate r ial cultur e .
%

2.3 On e phe nome non that shows up the existence o f an external or

*s ociolinguis tic' factor in s e mantic change is that o f are al affinity. Abdula ziz
(1 9 7 J) has dr awn atte ntion to the areal s e mantic effect whe re by speakers of
Eas t Afr ic a n language s , whe the r these are re late d to Swahili or not, find
Swahili eas ie r to handle than Englis h because o f the very high degree of
inte r trans latability be twe e n Swahili a nd the ir own language , Gum pe r z and
Wils o n’s account (1 971) o f the s e mantic ide ntity o f Ma r a thu Ka nna da and
U r d u as s poke n in a re gion o f So uth Ind ia along the Mar athi- Kannada
78 A s ocios e mioiic inte r pr e tation o f language

borde r is es pecially re ve aling in this respect. Since such ins tance s are typ­
ically also characte rize d by a high de gre e o f phonological affinity, the
ide alize d case o f area kaffinity ma ybe characte rize d in Hje lms le via n te rms as
one in which the conte nt systems are ide ntical a n d the e xpre s s ion systems
are ide ntical; what diffe rs is s imply the e ncoding of ihe one in the othe r the
one point of arbitrarine s s in the linguis tic system.
]t seems possible i hat the key to s ome o f the p r o b le m s o f are al affinity may
be found in a de e pe r unde r s tanding o f cr e olization, in the light of recent
studies. The de ve Japme nt o f areas o f affinity is its e lf pre s umably the e ffe ct of
a cre olization process, and hence it is not es s entially diffe r e nt fr om historical
contact processes in ge ne ral, but r athe r is a natur al cons e que nce o f the m. In
the same way the large- scale s e mantic inno va tio n re fe rre d to above can also
be seen as an instance of cre olization, one le ading to the de ve lopme nt o f new
lines of s e mantic affinity which no longe r follow are al (r e gional) patterns.
Ne us tupny (1971), in an inte re s ting dis cus s ion o f linguis tic dis tance in which
he atte mpts to isolate the notion of ^s ociolinguis iic dis tance propos e d to
de fine the condition of 'contiguity1 in social r athe r than in ge ographical
terms. It is not easy to see exactly what this me ans ; it c a nnot be ma intaine d
thai a r e quir e me nt for the de ve lopme nt o f an are a of affinity is a common
social s tructure , since, quite apar t fr om the phe nome non of large- scale
te chnical borrowing (which is typically as sociate d with the oppos ite s itu­
ation, but might be e xclude d from cons ide ration he re ), in fact the most
diverse social s tructure s are to be found within regions of e s tablis he d lin­
guistic affinily. Ye t some conce pt of a common social system, a( s ome very
abstract level, is pre s umably what is implie d by the more us ual but vague
assertion o f a c ommon culture^ as a conc omita nt o f are al re se mblance s .
At any rate, areal affinity is a fact, which de mons trate s , e ve n though it
does no( e xplain, that the s e mantic systems o f diffe r e nt language s may be
alike - and the re fore that they may be less alike . T he re is ofte n difficulty
e no ugh o f mutua[ c o m pr e he ns io n w it hin one la ngua ge , fo r e x ample be t­
we e n r ur al and ur b a n s pe ake rs , s imply be caus e one is r ur a l a nd the othe r
urban. The diachronic analogue to this are al affinity is pre s umably gen-
(r a tio na l affinity; the ge ne r ation gap is ce r tainly a s e miotic one , and is
probably re fle cte d in the s e mantic system. We d o not have the same system
as our grandfathe rs , or as ours elves whe n young. Linguis ts are accus tome d
10 Je aving such que s tions in the hands o f specialists in communic ation, mass
me dia, p a p culture and the like ; but ihe y have implications for the linguis tic
system, and for linguis tic change . Ne w forms of mus ic, and new conte xts of
mus ical pe rformance , de ma nd ne w ins tr ume nts , though these are ne ve r o f
course totally new.

3 M eaning and social str uctur e

S ./ As with othe r levels o f the linguis tic system, the nor mal condition of the
s e mantic system es one o f change . T he specific nature of the change s that
take place, and the ir r e lation to e xte rnal factors* may be more re adily
 Sociological as pects o f s e mantic change 79

unde r s tood if we re gard the s e mantic system as be ing Use If the proje c­
tion (e nc oding r e alization) o f s ome highe r level o f e x tr alinguis tic me a n­
ing.
Fr om a s ociolinguis tic vie wpoint the s e mantic system can be de fine d as a
functional or function- orie nte d me a ning pote ntial; a ne twor k o f options for
the e ncoding of some e xtralinguis tic s e miotic system o r systems in te rms of
the two basic comjx>ne nts o f me aning tha t we have calle d the ide ational and
the inte rpe r s onal. In principle this higher- level s e miotic may be vie we d in
the tr adition o f huma nis t thought as a conce ptual or cognitive system, one of
infor mation about the real wor ld. But it may e qually be vie we d as a s e miotic
of some othe r type , logical, ide ological, ae s the tic or social. He r e it is the
social perspective th a t is re le vant, the s e mantic system as r e alization o f a
social s e miotic; in the words of Mary Dougla s <1971 389),

If we ask of any form of communication the simple question - what is being

communicated? the answer is: information from the social system. The
e xchange s whic h are be ing c o m munic a te d c ons t itute the s ocial sys tem.

Info r ma tio n fr om the social system has this prope r ty, that it is, typically,
pre s e nte d in highly conte xt - specific doses* Whe re as a logical s e mantics may
be a monos ys te m, a social s e mantics is a nd mus t be a polys ys te m, a se< of sets
of options in me aning, e ach o f which is re fe rable to a give n social conte xt,
s ituation type or domain.
T he s e mantic system is an inte rface , be twe e n the (re s t o f (he ) linguis tic
system a nd some higher- orde r s ymbolic system. It is a pr oje ction, or re­
alization, o f the social s ystem; at the same time it is proje cte d onto, or
re alize d by the lexicograinniaticaL system. It is in this pe rs pe ctive that the
s ociolinguis tic conditions o f s e mantic change may be come accessible.
Le t us illus trate (he notion o f a context- specific s e mantics fr om two recent
studies. In both cases for the sake of s implicity 夏 will choos e ve ry s mall s e ts of
options , sets which more ove r, for m a s imple tax onomy. T he first is fr om
T urne r (1 9 7 3 ), s ome what modifie d. T urne r , on the basis o f a numbe r of
inve s tigations by Be r ns te in a nd his colle ague s in Lo m jo n cons tructs a
s e mantic ne twor k for a ce r tain type o f re gulative conte xt within the family,
involving ge ne r a l cate gor ie s o f pa r e nta l c o nt r o l s trate gy: Im p e r a t iv e ' 'p o s i­
t io n a l1a nd ‘pe r s o na l . Ea c h o f the s e is the n fur t h e r subcate gOT ize d, im p e r a ­
tive ^ in t o ‘thr e a t of los s o f pr ivile g e ’ a n d ‘thr e a t o f p u n is h m e m 4po&idona r
into ‘dis appr oba tion ‘rule- giving *re paration- s e e king' a nd *pos itional
e x pla na tion’’ ‘persona] into 're cognition o f inte nt and "pe rsonal e x pla na­
tion'. Figure 6 shows the system unde r ‘thre at o f loss o f privile ge 1; these are
ihe options that have be e n s hown to be available to the mothe r who selects
this for m o f contr ol be haviour.
In orde r to s how how these options are typically re alize d in the le xico­
grammatical system, we indicate the c ontr ibution that e ach make s to the
final s tructure o f the sentence (re fe re nce s are to paragr aphs in Roge t's
T he s aurus ):
80 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

re je ction: mate r ial process, Roge t § 293 De pa r tur e or § 287 Re ce s s ion:

He ar e r = Affe cte d; pos itive
command: ‘middle , type ; impe r ative jussive, exclusive
de cis ion: e ithe r 1m id dle 1 type , or (r ar e r ) ‘non- middle ’ (active , Spe ake r
/ — Ag e nt); indicative , de clarative
re s olution: future tense
obligation: mo dula tio n necessity
de pr ivation: mate r ial process, be ne factive , Roge t § 784 Giving; *non-
middle " ty pe (o ptio na l) Spe ake r / = Ag e nt; H e a r e r =
Be ne ficiary; indicative , de clarative ; future te ns e ; ne gative
Example s :
{ 1) you go on outs ide
{2) y o u ’re going upstairs in a minute
(3 ) n i have to take you up to be d
(4 ) y o u ’re not g o in g t o be give n a s we e t/J s h a n’t buy y o u a ny thing

I_ rejeclioo (2)
thraal of loss
e t p r iv ile g e deprivation (3)
imperative
\ ttndXol
punistiment .
dksapfKobalkm ...
nj*e - giW>g ...
i posirtonal
(•paralion'seetting...
posiiooal emanation ...
r TecoQn伯oft ol inteoi. .
pe rs onal
L personal explanation ...

Flg.6

T ake n as a whole the system reveals corr e lation at a num be r o f points with
social class, as we ll as with othe r s ocial factors ; for e x a mple in the inve s ­
tigation fr om which this is take n s ignificantly more middle- class mothe rs
than working- class mothe rs selected the ‘rule - giving’ type o f pos itional
control.
T he s e cond e x ample is take n fr om Co ultha r d et aL 1972. For a fulle r
re pre s e ntation o f this s e mantic ne twor k, see figure 7 (pp. 8 2- 3) fro m Ha ll iday
1975c; see Sinclair ^/a/. 1972 for a fulle r r e por t. T his is a s tudy o f s e mantics in
th e clas s room. T he s ocializing age at is the s chool, whe re pre s umably re gul ative
and ins tructional contexts are ins e par ably as sociated. T he authors inve s ­
tigate d the options ope n to the te ache r for the initia tion o f discourse: he may
select ‘dire ct which is pr e domina ntly re gulative in inte nt, or he may select
 Sociological as pects of s e mantic change 81

•infor m’ or ‘e licit which are pr e domina ntly ins tr uctional. Figure 8 (p. 85)
shows s ome o f the options unde r the *diie ctive > he a ding ; the for m o f pre*
s e ntation is adapte d to match that of T urne r.
T he unmar ke d modal r e alization o f the ‘dire ctive cate gory is the impe r a ­
tive ; but the re are ma r ke d options in which the othe r moods occur. "Pro-
s cribed action’ 1) is a be haviour al dire ctive which may be re alize d thr ough
impe r ative de clarative or inte rr ogative claus e types. Dire ctive s re lating to
non- pros cribe d actions may be (2 ) is olate d e xchange s (be havio ur a l) or (3)
parts o f inte ractions (pr oce dur a l); the y may be (4 ) requests, e ncode d in the
various moda l forms , o r (5) references to an action which ought to have be e n
pe r fo r me d but has not be e n, typically in past tense inte rrogative . ( C f
Ervin- T ripp 1969, 56 ff.)
Example s :
!

!
) don t rattle f what are you laughing at / s ome one is still whis tling
+&
"
#
will you o pe n the door ? / 1 want you to s top talking now

!
"# id you o pe n tha t door ?
d
+( %

! $
! # you mus t all s top wr iting now
!
, &
!
$
%
!
have you finis he d?
, (
These illus trations are, o f cours e, ve ry specific in the ir scope; but they
br ing o ut the ge ne r a l p o in t th a t , in o r d e r to re late the linguis tic r e a liza tion o f
social me anings to the Linguistic system, it is necessary to de par t from the
tr a d it io na l m o n o lith ic conce ption o f tha t s ys te m, at le as t a t the s e mantic
le ve l and to cons ide r ins te ad the par ticular ne tworks o f me anings that are
ope rative in par ticular social contexts. How these various s e mantic systems
combine and re inforce e ach othe r to produce a cohe re nt, or re as onably
cohe re nt, world vie w is a proble m in what Be r ge r a nd Ke llne r call the
'micros ociology of knowle dge ’. In ihe ir analysis o f the s ociology o f m a r ­
riage, they inte rpre t the marriage r e lation a co ntinuing conve rs ation, and
observe <1970 6 1 ) ‘In the mar ital conve rs ation, a world is not only built,
but it is ke pt in a state o f r e pair a nd ongoingly r e fur nis he d.1T his is achie ve d
thr ough the c um ula tive e ffe ct o f innume r a ble micr os e miotic e ncounte rs , in
the course of which all the various s e mantic s ubs ystems are br ought into

3.2 Hyme s made the point several years ago that ‘the role o f language may
diffe r from c ommunity to c o m m unity ’ 1966 116), Hyme s was ma king a
dis tinction be twe e n what he calle d two type s of linguis tic re lativity: cross-
cultur al var iation in the system (the fas hions o f s pe aking or "cognitive styles'
as he calle d the m) and cros s cultural var iation in its uses.
Bu t we s hould not press this dis tinction too hard. The system is me re ly the
user*&pote ntial, or the pote ntial for use; it is what the speakcr- hearer ‘can
me a n T his s e mantic pote ntial we are re garding as one form o f the p r o ­
je ction o f his s ymbolic be ha viour pote ntial: the ‘s ocios e miotic, system, to
use G reimas's (1 9 69 ) te rm. In any give n conte xt of us e - a give n s ituation type ,
in a give n social s tr uctur e - the me mbe r dispos es of ne twor k s of options , s e ts of
• ItVMl df loss t
otprivrieQe

Ihf9和镯
punoNnem
 command
"fe^ecfion — .^sokiti9r>
d e c is io n*

Ob liga tkvi
.(toprlvatioA
' cha8li$am9nt
■ aul^KMity r»9iire
f * explicit refdr6nc«1。
rdp^ition

~oondlttQf>al ' if

becaus e

or

.uAdMdttortal
parson
s la le m e m ------ actton

process
appdllatton
'd ia a p p r o b fltio n [ moral

other

intonsrfied

LunWe ns rtie d

ifnpd^Alrvd
r mandatory
oMoaiive
Lnormalise
rul»-giv*09 *
proNbi1 iv«

'poMive
 'positional
m olhe r
separate* -
Lchtfd
joint (mother &
C#iiWj oon-d$cf«tionary*
seeKiog Ascfettorvary
imperative

oNigative

possessi on

(d^ktimaie r solicited gm
Lpurcha$e

illigitimate rqwWod
po_ona( * aequtsrttoo
jxptanation Lunquanfwd
鉍 lad
of diwppfoowign ⋯

as 6»tpl anatw - Of ruM h^ng ...

of repar«Korv-9eek»n9
you meant _

recognition d lhal w as kind

inte nt
.i rtankyou

chttd (you^we)
p6f90Aftl
e »p i«na H o n
oxpbcit other (msy)
anaphortc

Test aMuaikiftt
W hat wovkl you d a if — bfOwgM y«ti 4 bunch of tlowvrs and you f ound gut that he/ she h ad o o ti h tm from a neighbour's garden?

i magine — had t o en out shoppi ng with you arnl wfien you got hom e you f ound he/sDe d picKed som e littto thing from one of the
oounM rs wrtttoui you nodctng. W hal would you say of do?

Fig. 7 Semantic systevn for a dass of regulative [sodal control] situattoos

84 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

Threat of lo ss of privilege
Rejection m gte rid 翁pr oc e s s ( De pa ftuiire R 293; R ecession', R 297); H earer
y ou = Me dium; pos itive
Deprivatk>n: iate rial proce s s : be ne factrve ('Giving*, R 784); He are r y o u = Be ne ­
ficiary (Re cipie nt/C1»9n () ne g a tive
Command: midcHe; imperative jussfv^: exclusive.
Ex: you go on upstairs go up to bed now
Decision: non-imkldle : a c tive /pa s s ive .
indic a tive : de c la r a tive \ efther m id d le or non-
S p e a k e r / = Age nt (optiona l in pa s s iv e ); m iddle * if re je ction, non-
mJddle * if de privation]
Resolution: future / in present / present in present
Ex you're going upstairs; 111take / J'm taking you upstairs [re^ec-
tiorj; I'm not to buy you anything: you're going to be gK/en
a sw eet [-depiivatiorj
Obligation: m o dula tio n: pa s s ive : ne c e s s a r y
Ex: 111 h a ve to 她 e you ups tairs ; you'll h a v o to g o ups ta irs [ r^iec*
tion ] y o u w on't h a v e to h a v e a s we e t; • s h a n't be abfte to g ive you
a sweet; next 忖⼱巾任 you won't be ab呤 to go shopping with m«
[ de privation]

Threat of punishm ent

Chastisem ent: m aterial process ⽧疒Punishm ent. R 972; H earer you = M edium; non-
middte: active,* Speaker/ = Agonx iiK ticatrva: dedarattve; future
in present; positive
Ex l it sm ack you you'll get sm acked
A uthority nnate<1al process (HPunishm© nt\ R 972; D isapprobation1, R 932
figure (jparas. beginning repr^ftend , sense of 'vertwJ punishm ent]:
H earer you - M edium; non-mjddla; 3rd person (f ath er/ police­
m an*) = A gent; indicative: declarative: future/: in present; posrttv#
Ex: th« policeman wifi tell you off; D addy'll sm ack you
Conditional: *y<xj d o tha t'
'if: hypotactic; condition in dependent clause, threat in main clause
Ex: If you do t hat ,. . .
because1 hypolactic; condition i-n main clause, th reat: dependent clause
Ex: don't / you m ustn't do that because , . .
•or’ paratactic; conditk)n i r clause 1 threat in clause 2
vou m ustn't do that or ⋯
Ex: donl / you
again in condition [ / next time = ii. . , again ]
Ek: If you do that again , , . next time you do that dorVt 6q
that again because / or ⋯

L oxicogrammatical realizationsof so me categories of*Control Strategy1(see fig. 7 'im perative')

Numbers following R refer to numbered paragraphs tn R o ge fs Thesaurus.

* = typical form
 Sociological as pects of s e mantic change 85

s e miotic alte rnative s , and these are re alize d thr ough the s e mantic system.
Fr om this point o f vie w as sugge sted in the las t s e ction, the s e mantic system
appe ars as a set of s ubs ys te ms e ach as s ociate d with a par ticular do ma in, or
conte xt o f use. Wh a t we re fe r to as *the s ys te m’ is an abs tract c o n­
ce ptualization o f the totality of the us e r’s pote ntial in actually occurring
s ituation types.

a c tio n p r o s c r ib e d (1 )

directive
p c o o e d u r r l <**vt*r«ctional) (3 )
Actionno4pro$crib»d
jnkxinatiw ...
pastoM^at^nfSk

alidtaiion .. .

In othe r words, diffe re nt groups of pe ople te nd to me an diffe re nt things .

Hyme s is undoubte dly right in re cognizing cros s cultural var iation in the
system, and it w ould not be s urpris ing if we als o find inCracuHura] (i.e .
cross- subcultural) va r iation. On e may choose to separate this obs e rvation
from the obs e rvation tha t diffe r e nt groups o f pe ople te nd to use language in
diffe re nt ways, us ing the one obs e r vation to e x plain the othe r ; but in any
case, the fact has to be accounte d for, a n d cannot re adily be accommodate d
in a conce ptual fr ame wor k which impos e s a rigid boundar y be twe e n com*
pete nee and pe rformance and re duce s the system to an ide alize d c o m ­
petence which is invar iable and ins ulate d fr om the e nvir onme nt.
La bov has s hown how, unde r conditions o f social hie rarchy, s ocial pre s ­
sures act selectively on phonological a nd grammatical variable s , le ading to
variation and change . How far do such pressures als o ope rate in the case o f
s e mantic change ? Alt h o u g h Labov hims e lf does not cons ide r the s e mantic
level, his work on non- s tandard varie ties o f Englis h has im po r ta nt im pli­
cations for this que s tion.
In a re ce nt pape r (1 9 7 0 b), La bo v gives a live ly dis cus s ion o f Ne gro
Non- Standar d Englis h for the purpos e o f de mons tr ating tha t it is jus t as
gr ammatical a nd }us< as ‘logical’ as any o f the ‘s tandar d’ forms of the
language . T his is not news to linguis ts for w hom it has always be e n a cardinal
axiom o f the ir s ubje c t; this is why, as Jo a n Ba r a tz once pointe d o ut linguis ts
have rare ly take n the tr ouble to de ny the various myths a nd folk- beliefs
about the illogicality o f non- s tandard forms . T he re is no doubt ing the logic
of all linguis tic systems. B u t a lthough all linguis tic systems are e qually
‘logical the y may diffe r in the ir s e mantic or ganiza tion; and the re have be e n
s erious discus s ions about the pos s ibility o f ‘de e p s tructure ’ diffe re nce s -
which we may inte r pr e t as s e mantic diffe re nce s - a m o ng the diffe r e nt
varie tie s o f Englis h (Lo flin 1969).
It may be te mpting to take it for gr ante d that ail varie tie s o f a language
86 A s ocios e miotic inte rpre tation o f language

mus t be s e mantically ide ntical, since as we know there are many pe ople who
mis inte rpr e t varie ty in e valuative terms: if two systems diffe r, they hold,
the n one mus t be be tte r than the othe r. It has be e n difficult e nough to
pe rs uade the layman to accept fo r m s o f Englis h which diffe r phonologically
fr om the re ce ive d nor m, a nd still more so thos e which diffe r g r a mma tic a lly ;
there would pr obably be eve n gre ate r resistance lo the notion o f s e mantic
diffe re nce s . But one s hould not be br owbe ate n by these attitude s into
re je cting the pos s ibility of s ubcultur al varie ty in ihe s e mantic system. In the
words of Louis Dum o n t (19 70, 289).
The one ne s s o f the h uma n s pe c ie s ,. . doe s not de m a nd the ar biir a r y re duction
o f dive rs ity to unity; ii onJy de m.ands that ii s hould be pos s ible to pas s fr om one
p a r t ic u la r it y t o a n o t h e r * a n d tha t: n o e ff o r t s h o u ld b e s p a r e d in o r d e r t o e la b o r a t e
a c o mmo n language in whicti e a ch par ticular ity c a n be ad- equately de s cribe d.

It is not to o difficult to inte rpre t this pos s ibility of s ubcultural diffe re nce s at
(he s e mantic level on the basis o f a c ombina tio n o f Labov's the orie s with
those of Be rns te in. Labov, pre s umably, is us ing the te rm lo g ic ’ in his title in
imitation o f thos e w ho assert tha t non- s tandard Englis h *has no logic'; the
me a ning is .logicalne s s ’ the prope rty o f be ing logical, rathe r than the kind o f
logic that it displays. There is no re as on to be lie ve tha t one language or
language varie ty has a diffe r e nt logic fr om anothe r . But this does nox me an
the ir s e mantic systems mus t be id e ntic a l Labov^s findings could, with
e nough contr ivance , be r e duce d to diffe re nce s o f gr ammar - the re by r o b ­
bing the m o f any s ignificance . Wha t the y in fact dis play are diffe re nce s of
s e mantic style, code - re gulate d habits o f me a ning pre s umably tr ans mitte d
through social and family s tructure , that dis tinguis h one s ubculture from
anothe r. Be rns te in's work provide s a the or e tical bas is for the unde r s tanding
o f this k in d of s e mantic var ie ty, ma king it pos s ible to envisage a social
semiotic o f a s ufficie ntly ge ne r al kind. Some s uch the or y o f Language and
social s tructure is a pre re quis ite for the inte r pr e tation of s ociolinguis tic
phe nome na, including Labov's own findings and the principle s he de rives
from the m. It is all the more to be re gre tte d, the re fore , that La bo v include d
in his valuable pole mic s ome ill- founde d and undocume nte d criticis ms of
Be rns te in's wor k; e .g. T h e notion is firs t dr awn from Be r ns te in’s writings
that . followe d by a quota tion from s ome body else which is diame tr ically
oppos e d to Be r ns te in's ideas. (Be caus e of his mis unde r s tanding o f Be r n­
stein, Labov assumes —one mus t as sume that he as sume s it, since othe rwis e
his criticis m would lose its point - that the speech which quote s fr om Larry is
an e xample o f re stricte d code ; in othe r words, La b o v appe ars to confus e
Be r ns te in’s ‘code* with social diale ct, de s pite B e r n s t e in e x p lic it dis tinction
be twe e n the two (1 9 7 1 ,199 but clear alre ady in 1971, 128, first publis he d
in 1965; cf. again Has an 1973). It is my impre s s ion that in Lar r y’s speech as
Labov represent s it the co ntr olling code is pr e domina ntly an e la bor ate d one .
although it is impos s ible to cate gorize such s mall speech s ample s with any
real s ignificance ; but in any case, as Be r ns te in has be e n at pains to e s tablis h,
diffe re nce s of code are r e la tive - the y are te nde ncie s , or or ie ntations , within
 Sociological as pects o f s e mantic change 87

which e ach individual displays cons ide rable var iation: a fact which he lps to
e xplain s ome of La bov’s own findings ,2 Be r ns te in would, I have no doubt,
agree with the points that La b o v purports co make against him; but more
important than that Be r ns te in’s work provide s the necessary the ore tical
s uppor t for La bov’s own ideas. Since this work has be e n mis unde r s tood
in s ome quarte rs it may be he lpful to atte mpt a br ie f r e capitulation o f it
here.

3 .3 We can, I t h in k ide ntify thre e stages in the de ve lopme nt o f Be r ns te in’s

the ore tical ideas. In the firs t stage, roughly pr ior to 1960, Be r ns te in
e x amine d the patte r n o f e duc ationa l failure in Br ita in, and atte mpte d an
e x pla na tion o f it in te rms o f ce rtain non linguis tic proje ctions of the social
system, particular ly mode s o f pe r ce ption. Tn the s econd Mage, roughly
1960- 65, he came to grips not only with language but als o with linguis tics ,
and came up with ce r tain linguis tic findings , o f cons ide rable inte re s t but still
o f a rathe r uns ys te matic kind. In the thir d stage he combine d his two
pre vious ins ights and s ought e x planations in te rms o f a social s e miotic, with
the linguis tic s e miotic, Le. s emantics, as its focal point. T his has me ant a
ma jor step towards a ge nuine ly *s ociolinguis tic" the ory - one that is at once
both a the ory o f language and a the ory of society.
Be r ns te in had be gun with the obs e r vation that e duc ationa l failure was not
dis tribute d r andomly in the po pula tio n, te nding to corre late with social
class; the lowe r the family in the social scale, the gre ate r the c hild’s chances
of failure . Cle ar ly there was s ome inc ompatibility be twe e n lower-
working- class social nor ms and the midd1e*c1ass e thos and the e ducational
system bas ed o n it. T he patte r n e me rge d mos t s tarkly as a discre pancy
be twe e n me as ure s o f ve rbal and nonve r bal inte llige nce ; the dis cre pancy was
s ignificantly gre ate r in the lowe r wor king class —and it te nde d to increase
with age. T he re was obvious ly, (he re fote Ta linguis tic e le me nt in the process,
and Be rns te in de ve lope d his first version o f the ‘code ’ the ory to try to
account for it: ^e laborate d code* re pre s e nte d the more ve rbally e xplicit,
conte x t'inde pe nde nt type of language , one which ma inta ine d social dis ­
tance , de ma nde d individuate d re spons es , and made n o as s umptions about
the he are r's inte nt; while the "restricted code ’ was the more ve rbally implic it
conte xt- de pe nde nt, socially intimate fo r m in which the he are r's inte nt could
be take n for grante d and hence re s pons e s co uld be bas e d on communa lize d
norms . Educ a tion as at pre s e nt or ganize d de ma nde d e la bor ate d code ;
the re fore , if any social gr oup had by vir tue o f its patte rns o f s ocialization,

1 I( is astonishing thai Labov finds in Bernstein a bias against all forms of working- class
be h a vio r '; if a ny th in g , Be r n s t e in ’s s y mpa thie s w o uld s e e m to be the o t h e r way. As Ma r y
Do u g la s puts it, *As fa r as the fa m ily is c o nc e r ne d, B a s il Be r ns te in be tr a ys a pr e fe r e nc e for
“positional” control rather than for "pers onal1' appeals . . . {His] analysis cuts us, the middle
class pa r e nts , down (o s i2a . O u r ve r bos ity a nd ins ince r ity a n d fu n d a m e n t a l un c e r t a in ly ate
re ve ale d . . . T he e la b o r a t e d c o de is fa r fr o m g lo r io u s w h e n the h id d e n im p lic a t io n s o f the
c e ntr a l s ys te m that g e ne r a te s it ar e la id b a r e .1 In a ge ne r ous le tte r to T he A tl anti c (v o l. 230* no.
5, N o v e m b e r 197 2), La b o v has e x pr e s s e cl r e gre i fo r a ny way in w hic h his o w n w r iti ngs have Led
to a m is in le r p r m d o n o f Be r n s t e in 's w or k.
88 A s ocios e miotic inte rpre tation o f language

only partial or conditional contr ol ove r this code , that gr oup would be at a
dis advantage .
Har r ie d by the linguis ts , Be r ns te in atte mpte d to de fine the codes in
linguis tic te rms be ginning with inve ntorie s o f features and progres sing
towards a conce pt o f ^syntactic pr e dic tion’ according lo which e labor ate d
code was characte rize d by a wide r range o f s yntactic choices, re stricte d code
by a more limite d range . T hos e like mys e lf who cate gorically re je cte d this
inte r pr e tation we re partly confounde d by some inte re s ting e arly studies
which s howe d that, in the pe rfor mance o f ce rtain tasks, the a mount of
gr ammatical var iation that was fo und in respect of (i) modification in the
nomina l group and (ii) the use o f modalitie s by childr e n o f various ages, was
in fact linke d to s ocial class. It was clear, howe ve r, that any s ignificant
linguis tic ge ne r alizations that co uld be made w ould be a t the s e mantic level,
since it was thr ough me anings that the code s we re manife s te d in language .
Be rns te in the n we nt on to ide ntify a s mall numbe r o f ‘cr itical s ocializing
conte xts ge ne ralize d s ituation type s fr om which the child, in the milie u o f
the pr imar y s ocializing agencies o f family, pe e r gr oup and s chool, de rive s his
e s s e ntial infor mation a b o ut the s ocial system* T he hypothe s is was that, in a
give n conte xt, say tha t o f pare ntal contr ol o f the chijd^s be haviour , various
diffe r e nt subsystems within the s e mantic system might typically be
de ploye d; hence the ^ode s ^ could be thought o f as diffe r e ntial or ie nta tion to
areas of me a ning in give a s ocial s ituations .
It s e e me d that if in some sense access to Ih e code s is controUe d by social
class, this contr ol was achie ve d thr ough the existence o f diffe r e nt family
types de fine d in te rms of role r e lations hips w it hin the family: the *posi-
tio na l’ a nd *pe rs onar family type s (cf. 1.3 above ). Wit h im po r ta nt q ua li­
fications a nd s ubcate gor izatlons f it appe ar e d that s trongly pos itional
familie s w ould te nd towards restrict^d- code forms o f inte raction - at least in
their mode s o f pare ntal contr ol, in the re gulative conte xt. Fa mily types do
not coincide with classes; but it is like ly that in the Br itis h conte xt, the more
pure ly pos itional family is found mos t fre que ntly among the lowe r working
class - jus t tha t section o f the p o pula tio n whe re the pr o po r tio n o f e du­
cational failure is ihe highes t. T he mode l the n looks s ome thing like this:
(diffe r e nt) s ocial classes

(diffe r e nt) family role systems

(diffe r e nt) s e miotic code s

(diffe r e nt) 'orde rs o f me a ning a nd relevance^

T he late r de ve lopme nt o f Be r ns te in’s thought is set o ut in the final papers
o f Clas s Code s a n d Co ntrol, vol. I which are too rich to be s ummar ize d in a
short space, Be r ns te in’s the ory is a the or y o f s ocial le a r ning and cultur al
trans mis s ion, and he nce o t s ocial persistence and s ocial change . As Ma r y
Do ug la s puts it (19 72, 312 )
 Sociological as pects o f s e mantic change S9

Wha te ve r [ Be rn stein] d o e s ,. .. he lo oks a t four e le me nts in the s ocial process.

Firs t the s yte m o fc o n t r o l, s e cond the b o u n d a r ie s ^ sets up> thir d the jus tific a tion
o r ide ology whic h s anctifie s the bo unda r ie s , a n d fo u n h he lo o ks at the powe r
which is hid d e n by rhe r e s t . , . .
I t hink Profe s s or Be r ns te in's wor k is the firs t io argue that the dis tr ibutio n of
s pe e ch for ms is e qua lly a r e a liza tio n o f ihe d is ir ib ut io n o f powe r.

It is a the ory o f society in which language plays a ce ntral part, both as

de te r mine r and as de te r mine d: language is contr olle d by the social s tructure,
and the social s tructure is ma inta ine d and trans mitte d ihr ough language .
He nce it offe rs the founda tion for inte rpr e ting processes o f s e mantic change .

3.4 In te rms o f the fr ame wor k we set up in the first s e ction, there are two
possible me chanis ms of s ocios e mantic change : fe e dback and trans mis s ion -
that is, fe e dback fr om the te xt to the system, and trans mis s ion of the system
to the child. A.s far as fe e dback is conce rne d, there is the pos s ibility of
changes in the me anings that are typically as sociate d with particular conte xts
or s ituation type s taking place in the course of time . Thes e change s come
about, for e x ample thr ough change s in the family role systems, unde r
conditions which Be r ns te in has s ugge s te d; or thr ough othe r s ocial factors -
changes in e ducational ide ologie s , for e xample . Such change s co uld re late to
rathe r specific s ituation types, s uch as thos e in the two illus tr ations give n
above .
We are famiLiar w ith ins tance s o f s mall subsystems r e alizing specific areas
o f s ymbolic b e h a v io ur A. good e xample is the "pronouns of powe r and
solidarity* (Br own a nd Oilm a n I960)* T he s e mantic system o f mode r n
Englis h is quite diffe r e nt at this point fr om that o f Eliza be than Englis h, so
much so that we can no longe r e ve n follow, for e xample , the de taile d
s ubtle ties and the shifts which take place in the pe rs onal r e lations hip of Ce lia
and Ros a lind in A s Y ou L ik e ft, which is re ve ale d by the ir sensitive s witching
be iwe e ji ih o u and^o- w (Mc Into s h 1963). T his is s imply not in our s e mantic
system. But such ins tance s ar e limite d, no t only in that they represent
s ome what specific s e mantic options but als o in tha t the y reflect only those
social re lations hips lh a t are cre ate d by language (a nd that do not exist
inde pe nde ntly o fla ng ua g e : the form y o u has me a ning only as the e ncoding
o f a pure ly linguis tic re lations hip) - o r else, as in the case o f change s in the
use o f kin te rms ’ the y affe ct only the dire ct e xpre s s ion o f the social re la­
tions hips the ms e lve s . Be r ns te in's work alLows us to e xte nd be yond these
limite d instance s in two s ignificant ways. First, it provide s an ins ight into how
the re lations within the social system may come to shape and modify othe r
me anings that language expresses, which may be me anings of any kmd;
s ocios e mantic var iation and change is no t confine d to the s e mantics of
inte rpe rs onal c ommunic a tion. Se cond, in the light o f a functional account of
the s e mantic system, Be r ns te in's work suggests how the change s in speech
patte rns lh a t are br ought about in this way be come incor por ate d into the
system, as a re s ult of the innume r a ble minutiae o f s ocial inte raction, and so
90 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

have an effect on othe r options , not dis tur bing the whole system (whate ve r
that would me a n), but re acting s pe cifically on thos e options that are func­
tionally re late d to the m.
T he n there is trans mis s ion, and here we have cons ide re d the c hild’s
Je a m in g o f the mothe r tongue fr o m a s ociolinguis tic po int o f view: suggest­
ing that the de ve lopme ntal origins of the s e mantic system are to be s ought in
the systems o f m e a ning pote ntial de r iving fr om ce r tain pr imar y functions of
language - ins trume ntal, r e gulatory a nd so on. Le t us pos tulate that a
particular s ocializing age ncy, s uch as the family, te nds to favour one set o f
functions ove r anothe r : tha t is’ to re s pond more pos itive ly to the c hild’s
me anings in that are a at least in ce rtain s ignificant s ocializing conte xts .
T he n the s e mantic system as sociate d with such conte xts will s how a relative
or ie ntation towards those areas o f me aning pote ntia l. A n indic ation o f how
this may come about at an e arly age is give n in an inte re s ting study by
Kathe rine Ne ls on (1 9 7 3 ), which suggests that the co mbina tion o f e du­
cational le ve l o f pare nt with pos ition o f child in family may le ad to dif­
fe re ntial s e mantic or ie ntations and thus influe nce the child's func tiona l
strategy for language le arning.
There is nothing s urpris ing in this ; it would be s urpris ing if it was othe r ­
wise. The que s tion tha t is of intere st is to what e xte nt s uch func tiona l
orie ntations be come incor por ate d into the system. We note d e ar lie r that the
child, having be gun by inve nting his o w n language , in which (he e xpre s s ion is
unre late d to adult s peech, at a ce rtain po int aba ndons the phyloge ne tic trail
and take s ove r the a dult system; the re is a dis continuity in the r e alization.
But there is (we sugge sted) no functional dis continuity; the child continue s
to build on the functional origins o f the system, ge ne r alizing o ut of his
original func tiona l set of b a s k dis tinction of pragmatic versus mathe tic - a
pragmatic, or ‘d o ing func tion, which de ma nds a re spons e fr om the he arer,
and a mathe tic or "le arning1func tion, which is re alize d thr ough obs e rvation,
recall and pr e diction a nd which ts self- sufficient: it de ma nds no response
fr om anyone . T his in turn, is a tr ans itional patte r n, which serves to trans ­
form the functional matr ix so that it be come s the core o f the a dult language ,
taking the form o f the ide ational/inte r pe r s onal compone nts in the s e mantic
ne twork; hence the re is functional continuity im h e system. A t the s ame time
the primary functions evoJve into s ocial conte xts , the s ituation type s e nc o un­
te red in the couis e o f daily life. For e xample , the original inte ractional
function of calls a n d re sponses to those on whom Ihe child was e motionally
de pe nde nt de ve lops into the ge ne ral inte rpe rs onal conte xt within the fa mily
and pe e r gr oup; the imaginative func tion o f s ound- play de ve lops into that o f
songs a nd rhyme s and s torie s ; and so on. T hus the re is func tiona l continuity
o f use, that ts, in the conte xts in which s e le ctions ar e made fr om within the
system. The me anings e nge nde r e d by the social system, in othe r words, are
s uch that the child is pre dis pos e d by his own language expe rie nce to adapt
the linguis tic mode of me aning to the m.
Natur ally, he "make s s e mantic mis take s 1 in the process, mis take s which
are ofte n re vealing. For e x ample towar ds the e nd o f his s e cond ye ar Nige l
 Sociological aspects of s e mantic change 91

le ar nt the gr ammatical dis tinction be twe e n de clarative and inte rrogative .

He locate d it, corre ctly, in the inte rpe r s onal compone nt in the system, and
re late d it to contexts of the exchange o f infor mation. Bu t having at the time
no conce pt o f as king yes/ao que s tions (i.e . is olating the polarity e le me nt in
the de ma nd for infor ma tion), he us e d the system to re alize a s emantic
dis tinction which he d id make but which the adult language doe s not, name ly
that be twe e n impa r ting infor mation to s ome one who knows it alre ady, who
has s hare d the re le vant e xpe rie nce w ith him (de clar ative ), and impar ting
infor mation lo s ome one who has not s hare d the e xpe rie nce and so does not
know it (inte r r ogative ). T hus , for e xample , on one occas ion while playing
with his fathe r he fe ll down; he goi up and said to his fathe r fe ll dow n
(y ou re fe rre d to hims e lf a t this stage ). T he n his mothe r, who had not been
pre se nt, came into the r oom; he ran up to her a nd s aid d id y ou f a ii dow n?
The use o f y ou for ‘me ’ and the use o f the inte rrogative for giving infor ­
mation are o f course conne cte d; the y are both in te rms o f cognitive
de ve lopme nt, fe ature s of the phas€ be fore role - playing in s peech. But the
modal patte rn re ve als a s mall s e mantic subs yste m, not pre s e nt in the adult
language , which is both s table in te rms o f the child's me aning pote ntial a t the
time and trans itional in the wide r de ve lopme ntal conte xt.
T he func tiona l c ontinuity that we have pos tulate d, accor ding to which
both the linguis tic system its e lf a nd its e nvir onme nt e volve o u t of the initial
set o f functions which de fine the chilcTsearliest acts of me aning, accounts for
the fact that the child's me a ning pote ntia l may de ve lop diffe re nt or ie n­
tations unde r diffe r e nte nvir onme ntal conditions —als o, the re fore , unde r the
control o f diffe r e nt s ymbolic codes. ‘The s ocial s tructure be come s the de ­
ve loping child’s ps ychological re ality by the s haping o f his act o f s peech'
(Be rns te in 1971v 124). If the re are change s in the s ocial s tructure , especially
change s affe cting ihe family role systems, these may le ad to change s in the
c h ild ’s or ie ntation towards or away fr om ce rtain ways o f me aning in ce rtain
types o f s ituation; and this particular ly in the e nvir onme nt o f what Be r n­
stein calls the 'critical s ocializing conte xts ', may le ad to change s in le arning
strategies’ and hence to change s in the me a ning pote ntial that is typically
as sociate d with various e nvjr oame nts - i,e , in the s e mantic system. These
change s in me aning pote ntia l would take place gradually and without es s en­
tia] dis continuity. A s ocios e mantic change of this kind does not necessarily
imply, a nd pr obably us ually doe s not imply, the comple te dis appe arance o f a
s e mantic choice> or the appe ar ance o f a totally ne w one . It is like ly to me an
r athe r tha t ce rtain choice s be come mor e or less, diffe re ntiate d; or that
certain choices are more , or less, fr e que ntly take n up. These things too are
fe ature s o f the system. It s e e ms pos s ible the r e fore , that s e mantic change s
may be br ought about by change s in the social s tructure , thro ugh the
ope r ation o f the sort of processes de s cribe d by La bo v, in the course o f the
trans mis s ion o f language to the child. Whe the r or no t it is true (hat, as
We inr e ich, Labov a nd He r zog c la im (19 68, 145)^ ‘the c h ild normally ac­
quire s his particular diale ct patte rn, inc luding recent change s , fr om childre n
only slightly olde r than h im s e lf, it seems cle ar tha t only whe n we inte rpre t
92 A s ocios e miotic inie r pr e tation o f language

langu age de ve lopme nt in the conte xt o f the cons tr uction and tr ans mis s ion o f
s ocial re ality can we hope to find in il the sources a nd me chams ms of
linguis tic change .
We can call the fie ld o f s tudy s ociolinguis tics ; but if o ur goal is the purs uit
o f system- in- language (F is hma n 1971 8), this is surely linguis tics , and
linguis tics always has, thr oughout aH its shifts of e mphas is , acce pte d what
Hyme s (1 9 6 7 ) calls the *s ocioculiural dime ns ions o f its subje ct- matte r’ the
link be twe e n language and the s ocial factors that mus t be adduce d to e xplain
obs e rve d linguis tic phe nome na. By the same toke n, howe ve r we do not
ne e d 'communicative compe te nce which has to be a dduce d only if the
system has first be e n is olate d fr om Us s ocial conle x i. If we are conce rne d
with ‘what the speaker- hearer knows ’ as dis tinct from what he can do, and
we caJI this his *compelence\ the n compe te nce is communicaCive c o m ­
pe te nce ; there is no othe r kind. Bu t this seems to be a needless complication.
T he system can be re pre s e nte d dire ctly in *inte r*organis m’ te rms , as 'whai
the s peaker- hearer ca n do ’ and more spe cifically what he can me an. To shift
to an intra- organis m^ perspective adds nothing by way o f e x planation.
T he s ociology of language is a diffe r e nt que s tion as Fis hman says; here
the aims are wide r than the characte r ization o f the Linguistic system. Socio­
logy o f language implie s the the or e tical r e lation o f the linguis tic system to
prior, inde pe nde ntly e s tablis he d socioJogical conce pts , as in Be rns te in's
work, where e ach the ory is continge nt o n the othe r : the linguis tic system is as
essential to the e x planation o f social phe nome na as is che social system to the
e x pla nation o f linguis tic phe nome na.
】 n cons ide ring the social conditions o ( Linguistic change , we are as king not
only ihe ‘s ociolinguis tic’ que s tion, to what e xte nt are change s in the lin-
guis iic system re latable to social factors, b ut als o and pe rhaps more , the
^sociology o f language ’ que s tion, t o what e x te nt are change s in the linguis tic
system esse ntial concomitants o f fe ature s o f (inc luding change s in) the social
system. La b o v’s work on phone tic change has not ye t, so far as I know be e n
take n up by sociologists; b ut it reveals patte rns and principle s of intra- and
inte r- group co mmunic a tion which seem to me to have cons ide rable sig­
nificance for the orie s o f s ociai inte raction a nd s ocial hie rarchy. An d from
anothe r angle , Be r ns te in’s research into language in the trans mis s ion o f
cultur e is e qually ce ntral both to an unde r s tanding of language , including
language de ve lopme nt in childr e n a nd linguis tic change , a nd to an unde r ­
s tanding o f society, of persistence and change in the s ociai s tructure . He re
we are in a ge nuine inte rdis cipline o f s ociology a nd linguis tics , an area of
conve rge nce o f two diffe re nt sets of the orie s , and ways o f thinking about
pe ople .
Be r ns te in once re proache d s ociologis ts for not taking into account the fact
that humans speak. If linguists seek to unde r s tand the phe nome na of pe r ­
sistence a nd change in the linguis tic system - how the inne rmos t patte rns
both o f language a nd o f cultur e are tr ans mitte d thr ough the countle s s
micros e miotic processes o f s ocial inte raction - we for o ur part mus t learn to
take account of the fact that humans spe ak, not in s olitude b ut to e ach othe r.
Social dialects and socialization*

This book 申is the re cord of a confe re nce on social diale cts or ganize d by the
Ce nte r for Applie d Linguis tics late in 1969. It is *crossdisciplinary* in the
sense that, of the ten participants , two were invite d as specialists in speech
and communic ation, two in ps ychology, two in sociolinguis tics two in edu*
cation and two in linguis tics /anthropology. Un d e r e a c h o f these dis ciplinary
he adings one o f the two contr ibute s a pape r a nd the othe r a response.
T he five pape rs are , in corr e s ponding s e que nce *SociaI diale cts and the
field o f s pe e ch by Fre de rick Willia m s ; "De ve lopme ntal s tudie s of c o m ­
municative compe te nce 1, by Harr y Os s e r ; "Social diale cts in de ve lopme ntal
s ociolinguis tics ', by Sus an M. Ervin- T ripp; *Appr oache s to social diale cts in
early childhood e duc a tion1, by Cour tne y Ca 2de n; and "Sociolinguis tics from
a linguis tic pe rs pe ctive 1, by Wa ll Wolfram* Fina lly there is a contr ibution
e ntitle d 'The inade quacie s o f the Linguistic appr oac h in te aching situations*,
by Sie gfrie d Eng e lma nn, who was spec tally invite d by the e ditor to comme nt
on criticis ms made o f the "Be re ite r—Enge lma nn appr oac h' in ce rtain o f the
papers containe d in the book.
No t surprisingly^ the e mphas is thr oughout is s trongly pragmatic, with an
or ie ntation towards programme de ve lopme nt. T he conte xt for s uch a c o n­
ference is ine vitably the cr itical s ituation in Am e r ic a n e ducation; the crisis is
not limite d to the Unite d States, o f cours e , but it is the Ame r ica n scene
which is unde r focus here. T he Ce nte r for Ap plie d Linguis tics ' Ur ba n
Language Se rie s reflects the same growing pre occupation. In the ce ntre o f
atte ntion is ‘black Englis h', and the re is fre que nt re fe re nce , e s pe cially in the
responses to the papers , to the ne gative aspects o f study and inte rve ntion
programme s : the lack of unde r s tanding o f black cultur e , language use and
language as pirations , the as s umption that it is s peech habits that mus t be
change d ins te ad o f the attitude s towards the m, the re luctance to look
obje ctive ly into the s chool as a s ocial ins titution, a nd so on. In Cla udia
Mitche ll Ke m a n's words , ‘Re a c tion in the black c ommunity to black Englis h
as it is portr aye d in some gr ammar s and re ade rs has ofte n be e n ne gative ___
Many re pre s e ntations o f black Englis h diffe r to s uch a degree fr om the
language as it is prese ntly us e d that they ought to presage the re action. The
search for a ne w ide ntity unde r way in black communitie s eve rywhe re and
the spirit o f r e be llion agains t a n ide ntity de fine d by outs ide rs s hould be
• Re vie w o f SocioUnguisticsr a crossdi scipl i nary perspective (Wa s h in g t o n , DC : Ce n t e r for
Ap p lie d Lin g uis tic s ).
94 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

ade quate fore warnings to non- blacks ma king e fforts to de fine and
ins titutionalize a black language ' (p. 68).
Each o f the pape rs cons is ts o f three parts, ‘re se arch as s umptions ',
‘research re vie w’ a nd ‘re se arch suggestions'- Thes e vary gre atly in le ngth
and amount of de tail; but all are thoughtful, infor mative a nd live ly in
pre s e ntation, Willia ms dis tinguis he s the two ma in compone nts o f speech
studies* ‘s peech a nd he aring' (c ommunic ative dis orde rs ) a nd 'ge ne ral
speech' (rhe toric and co mmunic a tio n); ne ithe r is like ly to be a m a jo r source
of social diale ct research, but Willia ms finds signs of incre as ing conce rn and
a gre ate r obje ctivity on the *deficiency- difference issue*. T he te nde ncy o f
speech e ducators a nd speech clinicians to confus e diale ct diffe re nce s with
language dis orde rs , and to tre at nons ta nda r d forms as s pe e ch defects, is still*
however, a ma jo r proble m o f socially conditione d attitude s . T he ne e d to
‘accept a wide range o f speech be haviour*, r athe r than trying to change
pe ople 's speech habits, is the ke ynote o f the response by Or la n d o J. T aylor,
w ho urging the acce ptance of a Black Standard Englis h (*Why c a n’t Black
Standard Englis h be include d in the rubric of Sta nda r d Englis h, de s cr ibe d
and the n left alone ? T(p. 15)), make s the point that it is as a r e ading skill that
Standard Englis h is less like ly to e voke resistance among nons tandard
speakers, ‘pe rhaps . * , because r e ading is a less intima te issue than speech
and, the re fore , Jess te nde r ’ (p, 19).
Stressing the factor o f bias in typical e x pe rime ntal proce dure s , Os s e r
unde r line s the necessity o f dis cove ring the ^sociolinguistic rule s ’ that make
up 'communicative c o m pe te nc e ' and in par ticular o f e x panding the sort of
clas s room inte raction studies unde r take n by Be lla c k^f (1 9 6 6) in orde r to
find out ‘how language functions for childre n o f diffe re nt ages and from
diffe re nt s ubcultural backgrounds in var ious e duca tional conte xts 1 (p. 29).
Re fe r r ing to the work o f Flave tl et al, (1 9 6 8 ), Os s e r dis tinguis he s two
e le me nts in the de ve lopme nt of communicative compe te nce : the ability to
analyse the lis te ne r’s role characteris tics , a n d the ability to use one 's lin­
guistic resources in appr opriate commuTiicatLon strategies. Studie s s uch as
that o f Willia ms and Nar e more (J9 6 9 ), take n toge the r with those o f Be r n­
s te in and his colle ague s (e .g. Haw kins 1969), s eem to suggest s ocial class
diffe re nce s in the functions o f speech; but ‘we have to be very wary of
de ve loping a mythology abo ut diffe re nce s in communicative compe te nc e ’:
childre n fr om diffe re nt social classes may have quite diffe re nt ide as of what
the s ituation de mands , but whe n they are to ld what is re quire d o f the m the
diffe re nce s dis appe ar (cf. Er vin^T r ipp on p. 51). In a br ie f comme nt, Ve ra
Jo hn s ubjects the role of the e ducational ps ychologis t to a ge ne ral critical
appraisal.
Ervin- T ripp be gins by dis tinguis hing be twe e n 'comparative s tudie s of
language de ve lopme nt1 which may have little s ociolinguis tic conte nt and
"de ve lopme ntal s ociolinguis tics ’ which, bas e d Largely o n the work o f Hyme s
and Gu m per 厶seeks to e xplore language de ve lopme nt in the conte xt o f the
social milie u. She likewise refers to the bias that is inhe r e nt in many o f the
te sting mate rials and proce dure s , c it ing Jo a n Ba r a tz (1 9 69 ) as an e x ample of
 Social diale cts a n d s ocialization 95

how this ca n be avoide d; a nd suggests that pe r haps ‘until one is able to

cons truct mate rials in which the minor ity gr oup doe s b e t t e r . . , one does not
unde r s tand the unique fe ature s o ft h e s kills childr e n acquire in thos e gr oups ’
(p. 37). By contras t, the Ethno g r a phy o f s pe aking’ appr oach s tudie s speech
in its natur al settings, on the as s umption that ‘s ocial groups vary in the uses
to whicK they mos t ofte n put speech and in the value the y attach to diffe re nt
uses1(p. 40 ); it provide s a fr ame wor k for inve s tigating types and conditions
o f diale ct s witching (Blo m and Gu m p e r z 1972) and for following up c o n ­
cepts s uch as La b o v ’s ‘mo nito r ing (a tte nding to and modifying one 's own
s peech) and ‘m a r king ’ (conve ying s ocial infor mation by the use o f non*
congrue nt for ms ). Pointing o ut that 's tandar d Englis h1is in many ins tance s a
matte r o f the re lative fr e que ncy a nd cons is te ncy o f the use o f ce rtain forms
r athe r than o f the ir presence o r abs ence in abs olute terms, Ervin- T ripp
suggests conte xts for the use o f nons ta ndar d in school* c o mme nting that the
ma in value o f this lie s in its he lping to modify te ache rs 1 attitude s . She lists
twe lve research dire ctions , a mong the m the s tudy o f how the writte n la n­
guage functions in c hildr e n’s lives, of how c hildr e n le a m diffe re nt speech
styles, and o f how te ache rs ca n be tr a ine d ‘to unde r s tand nons tandard
speech* (in what sense is ^understand* be ing us e d he r e ?). Ke r nan's response
Tefers to the toad o f ills th a t the ‘s ocial dialect* conce pt has be e n made to
be ar ( ‘Social diale ct is pr obably not as dircctly a source o f acade mic failure
as we are prone to as s ume ' (p, 67 )), and Looks towards a cultur ally unbias e d
account o f communicative compe te nce , Cazde^n's pape r ne atly s ummarize s
the false as s umptions , confus ions and mis conce ptions tha t be fog the issue,
and ide ntifie s thre e re se arch a nd de ve Jopme nt areas: the conce ptions of
language he ld by researchers and e ducators , and how to change the m; the
e duca tional implications o f diale ct diffe re nce s ; and the nature o f e d u ­
cational progr amme s a nd obje ctive s . In his respons e, Ro b e r t D. He s s aslcs
for clar ification of ‘the diffe re nce s among: <1) the prestige value o f a
language , (2 ) linguis tic compe te nce , (3 ) the ve rs atility of a language as a
ve hicle for communicating fe e lings a nd ide as ', whic h seems an odd for ­
mula tion but is pe r haps inte rpr e table as the 'de ficit or diffe r e nce 1que s tion in
anothe r form. He adds a r e minde r about linguis tic var iation within e thnic
groups*
Wo lfr a m ’s pape r, the longe s t, is also an e xce lle nt s ummar y o f the fie ld o f
s ocial diale ct s tudie s in the Unite d States. Its e xclus ive ly Ame r ica n or ie n­
tation le ads to some ove r s implify ing- it is implie d, for e x ample , that the only
aJte mative inte rpre tations o f language de ve lopme nt are those o f Choms ky
a nd Skinne r ; but the pictur e he give s is a re pre s e ntative one . Be ginning with
the dic hotomy o f the cognitive a nd be haviour al functions o f language (which
be come s r ound to que s tioning in the e nd), he gives a cle ar s ummar y o f the
de ficit the ory, re mar king tha t 's uch a pos ition can only be take n whe n actual
de scriptive and s ociolinguis tic facts are ignored* (p. 93 ); he the n tre ats o f
language as cultur al be ha vio ur a nd make s a firm c ommitme nt to the social
e x pla na tion o f linguis tic diffe re nce s . He offers a ge ne ral de finition o f a
s tandar d language re fe rrijig to Ga r v in a nd Ma thio t's (1 9 5 6 ) char ac­
96 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

te rization of its functions as unifying, s e paratis t, pre stige, and frame*

of* re fere nee, and noting that ‘more specific de finition is de pe nde nt on the
particular language s ituation' (p. 98); afte r a br ie f history o f diale ct research
in the Unite d State s , he the n tur ns to the ne we r kind of diale ctology, one that
is ur ban social and quantitative , ina ugur ate d by La b o v ’s (19 6 6) Ne w Yo r k
City s tudie s and continue d by othe rs such a s Shuy e / a /. (1 9 6 7 ) in De tr oit and
Fas old (1 9 7 0 ) in Was hington.
Wo lfr a m the n gives a cr itical s ummary of de s criptive work on black
Englis h, and discusses the two oppos e d views re garding its origins : the
e arlie r vie w tha t it is the for m o f Englis h as s ociate d w ith s peakers having
ce rtain s ociore gional profile s , whe the r black or white , and the views o f
Ste wart, BatJey and othe rs who see it as a language with its own *deep
s tructure ' having e volve d by a proce ss o f 4decreolizaiion\ He introduce s
La b o v’s (1 9 6 9) conce pt o f in h e r e n t var ia bility ’ as a s ys te matic fe ature in
language , and refers to the diffe r e nce be twe e n ‘s harp s tratification" and
*gradie nt s tr atification’ (dis continuity versus continuity in the fre que ncy of
variants in the s peech of contiguous groups ), noting that 'the phonological
diffe re nce s be twe e n social gr oups te nd to be quantita tive [ gradie nt] whereas
the gr ammatical diffe re nce s are ofte n quaiitative [ sharp] ’ (p. 112). He
e nume r ate s research tasks in the three areas o f fie ld te chnique s , de s criptive
studies a nd the or e tical issues, s ingling out within the last proble ms o f var ia­
tion, of ‘pandiale ctal de s cription, a nd o f ‘mo dific a tio n (the last re late d to
what Fe rgus on (1971 a) calls ‘s im 沖fic a tkm ’) as we ll as a numbe r o f more
specific issues. Finally he make s a plea, which may re adily be e ndors e d, for ‘a
general appr oach to s ociolinguis tics 7 (p* 128).
In a ple as antly re fre s hing response, Willia m J. Samar in asks the sociolin-
gui&ts to te ll us Avho the Ame r ic a n pe ople are and how the y use language
s ymbolically to buiJd the ir backyard fences. He asks pointe dly whe the r a
society within a large r society can afford the luxury o f its own language - io
which we might offe r the te ntative obs e r vation tha t s ociolinguis tic history
suggests that such ‘micros ocie tie s come a nd go and the ir s ocial diale cts
come and go with the m: hence they create the ir "language s ' in the process o f
their own e volution a nd change .
T he rathe r irritable pole mic by Enge lm a nn tha t conclude s the volume
does no service to his own cause. It contains a numbe r o f confus ions about
language , and s ome s trange notions about Linguists. Ex ample s (my italics
thr oughout): 1Le t's say tha t we wante d to te ach a child a new conce pt. This
child does not have the conce pt red. He spe aks a fore ign language , which
me ans tha t he has pr obably ne ve r produc e d a state me nt s uch as, “ It ’s red.
The truck is r e d” a nd so for th’ (p. 142); ‘Le t ’s acce pt the Linguist's or ie n
tation for the sake o f ar gume nt. Le t ’s say the pr oble m w ith childr e n w/io lack
language s k ills is not a language proble m, but r athe r one o f lo g ic al opera-
tio n s '(p . 145). But it is the ge ne r al s mugne s s that is mos t dis turbing. We can
pe rhaps unde r s tand the impatie nce o f an e ducator who finds that linguis tks
is not a comfor table single- faceted the ory with a box o f re me die s to hand,
eve n if his e xpe ctations s eem s ome what naive : T o r every language progr am
 Social diaJects a nd s ocialization 97

that [ the linguis t] propos es anothe r linguis t can propos e a diffe re nt progr am.
Ye t, all o f the linguis ts work fro m the same the ory , the s ame e vide nce" (p.
14 ^); 'We are give n s tate me nts about how language “d e v d o p s \ but we are
not told how to change language 9 (p. 142). We can eve n s ympathize with his
e xas pe ration at the s upe rior auitude of linguis ts towards his views about
language , an attitude of whic h this book is by no me ans free. Ma ny linguists
are e qually critical o f the limiia tions and one- sidedness which characte rize d
the 代cent history o f the ir own dis cipline . But it is dange r ous to let the
impatie nce and e xas pe ration be come the excuse fo r ignor ing a whole re alm
o f unde r s tanding about pe ople tha t is ce ntrally re le vant to the e ducational
process, A discussion o f the nature of compe ns ator y pr ogramme s a nd the ir
highly comple x implic a tions for what we know about language a nd language
de ve lopme nt is outs ide our scope he re ; the re is an e xtre me ly r e le vant discus­
sion inBe r ns te inJs C19 7 1)tw oc onc liidingc ha pte r s on the s ociology ote duca-
tion ‘A cr itique of the conce pt o f compe ns atory e ducation" and ‘O n the
classLficaiion a nd fr aming o f e ducational knowle dge 1. But the linguis ts ' plea
for c a ution which is es s e ntially a plea for taking language s e rious ly, a nd for
approaching a child's linguis tic de ve lopme nt with ima gination a nd some
humility rathe r than with a sort of myopic viole nce , is not one jus t to be
verbally bulldoze d aside.
Le t us now cons ide r the book in its br oade r pe rspe ctive . It is an admir able
survey a nd reference h a n d b o o k; but why (he pre te ntious tide ? Ou t o f a
doze n and more curr e nt topics that could be cite d as falling within the
domain o f sociolinguistics , the book de als with one o r two at the mos t. It
might be tte r have be e n calle d "Social diale ct in Ame r ica: an e ducational
pe rspe ctive ’ ⼀一although it is c rossd iscip] inar y, the re is als o a gre at unifor mity
in the unde r lying pr e occupations o f the comr ibutor s .
It is not s urpris ing that La b o v ’s name occurs o n practically every ocher
page. His c ontr ibution is unique , in its or iginality a nd als o in its range , which
covers urban diale ctology, the nature o f the linguis tic system, the language
of the pe e r gr oup linguis tic inte raction a nd much else besides; he is now
br inging radically ne w ide as into the his tory o f Language. It is all the more
s triking tha t’ while Ihe refe rence s to his work by s cholars (inc luding thos e in
this book) relate mainJy to these contr ibutions , La b o v’s influe nce on the
e ducational process in the Unite d States — which s ome think is alre ady
cons ide rable —has be e n achie ve d large ly by the s imple act o f saying- force-
fully and colourfuily what every linguis t knows alre ady: ‘Lo o k - they have
language to o !’ It is a sad comme ntar y o n our time that we go on 'pr oviding
data to prove the ir humanity', as T aylor expresses it (p, 18), Us e ful as
La bov s po pula r pole mic undoubte dly has be e ny the re are dange rs in this
kind o f thing. Howe ve r inte re s ting the linguis tic re parte e o f adole s ce nt pe e r
groups is to the s ociolinguis t (a nd we are still almos t totally ignorant of
young childr e n’s peer gr oup speech a nd its role in c ultur a l trans mis s ion), it is
pre s umably a fe ature o f ail cultur e s in s ome for m or othe r ; in its e lf it is
trivial, a nd it s hould not be necessary to focus a tte ntion on it in orde r to
de mons trate tha t blacks have the s ame linguis tic s kills as whites. Muc h of
98 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

what Cazde n calls the ‘crisis o f confide nce ’ o f black pe ople in research and
e duc ationa l pr ogramme s conduc te d by white s pr oba bly stems from the
appare ntly cons tant ne e d to har p on this e le me ntar y tr uth.
Ha r dly any refe rence is made in the bo o k to social diale cts which arc not
e thnic in origin. It might be argue d tha t in the Unit e d State s it is e thnic
diffe re nce s r athe r than s ocial class diffe re nce s tha t are more basic and more
divis ive ; but this at le as t ne e ds s tating. In this re spe ct social diale ct que s tions
are in some ways eas ie r to discuss in the Br itis h conte xt, whe re the work that
has be e n done has n o racial ove rtone s ; no t that there are no compar able
patte rns affe cting recent immigr ants to Br ita in - tho ug h the issue is initially
and still ma inly one o f social clas s —but be cause the re le vant rese arch, that o f
Be rns te in and his colle ague s , has be e n done a mong white s . ( A black gradu*
ate s tude nt with w hom I was working last ye ar told me that whe n she first
read Be r ns te in it was quite some time be fore she re alize d (bat his working-
class s ubjects were no t black.) Be r ns te in is the othe r truly original thinke r in
this fie ld; his name too crops u p at time s in the b o o k and he receives an
unus ually s ympathe tic and e nlighte ne d re ading. Like Labov, whose ide as
ge t dis torte d into a sort o f naive romanticis m, Be rns te in is als o wide ly
mis unde r s tood, be ing inte rpr e te d in te rms o f a crude class diale ctology
which is totally a t variance with his actual views. It is unfor tunate tha t Labov
hims e lf has contr ibute d to this mis unde r s tanding —the more so because
Be r ns te in's the orie s fo r m a necessary c omple me nt to La bov's own. La b o v ’s
work pre s uppos e s s ome general the ory o f cultur al tr ans mis s ion a n d social
change ; a nd it is this that Be r ns te in has to offe r. It is not too fanciful to s peak
o f a *Be r n st e in- Labo v hypothe s is ' in this conne ction.
T he point is that we ne e d to look be yond que s tions o f e thnicity a nd social
class at s ubcultur al var ie ty in the br oade r conte xt o f the s ocial system.
Ne ithe r so- called ^black/white s pe e ch diffe r e nce ^’ n o r linguis tic diffe r ­
ences be twe e n social classes can be ade quate ly accounte d for in te rms
o f phonological and Je xicogranimatical fe ature s , whe the r qualitative or
quantitative . Such diffe re nce s exis t; but the y do n o t e xplain things . T o cite
one s mall piece o f e vide nce »de s pite the linguis tic dis tance s e par ating black
nons ta ndar d fr om s tandard Englis h in Ame r ic a, the surv i v i ng rur o/ diale cts
in Br ita in are s e parate d fr om s tandar d Br itis h Englis h by at least as great a
distance^ in le x icogrammar as we ll as in phonology; yet the pr oble m o f
e duc ationa l failure* in Br ita in as in Ame r ic a, is one not o f the countrys ide
but o f the cities involving childre n whose diale ct is much clos e r to, and
w ould be re garde d by mos t linguis ts as a fo r m o f the s tandar d language (cf,
Fis hman and Lue de rs - Salmoti 1972).
T he sort of diffe re nce s that ar e in que&tion ins ofar as the y are linguis tic,
are pr obably to be inte rpr e te d along the line s o f Be r ns te in's ‘code s as
linguis tic manife s tations o f diffe re nce s in the s ocial s e miotic, diffe r e nt s ub­
cultur al ‘a n ⾽髟es on the s ocial s ys te m. T he r e are styles o f me aning dis ­
tinguis hing one cultur e or one s ubcultur e fr om anothe r : s e miotic me lodie s
and r hythms which may be actualize d in various ways, for e xample as
be haviour al rhythms , various forms o f body s ymbolis m a nd the like . La n ­
 Social diale cts a n d s ocialization 99

guage is jus t one o f the for ms thr ough which these me anings are re alize d.
He nce pe r haps the obs e rvations by the Mc Da vids (1 95 1 where the y cre dit
it to WiJlia m M. Aus tin) that ‘many o f the s ignificant diffe re nce s be twe e n
the speech of Ne groe s and that o f white s may not be linguis tic at all. The
same kind of s e miotic varie ty can be seen be twe e n male and female^ be ­
twe e n old a nd young* be twe e n r ur al a nd ur ban; a nd it w ould be s urpris ing if
it did not als o manife s t its e lf as a function of s ocial class. We are me re ly
adopting the Le vi- Straus s ian vie w of a cultur e as a system o f me anings , and
e xte nding the principle to the s ubcultur e . T he que s tion the n is not how social
class diffe re nce s in me aning arise so much as how they are ma inta ine d and
tr ans mitte d fr om one ge ne r ation to the next, and how the y can change in the
cours e o f time . Be r ns te in re late s this first to the fa m ily - t o systems o f family
role re lations hips and the typical communic ation patte rns that de rive from
the m; the n to the pe e r gr oup a nd Later, to the e duca tional process itself.
Thes e are the loci o f the child's s ocialization, the conte xts thr ough which he
be come s a person in the e nvir onme nt o f othe r pe ople .
In the s ocializing process, as in e ve ryday social inte raction (the two are the
s ame thing looke d a t fr om diffe r e nt points o f vie w), a mong the various
s e miotic mode s language no do ubt plays a unique ly pr omine nt part. But
there is a var iable here too: as a numbe r o f contr ibutor s to the bo o k point
out, diffe re nt cultur e s may vary in the role s that are assigned to language .
T he inte r pr e tation that is offe r e d, howe ve r, s tops s hort a t the level of
‘communicative compe te nce it is confine d to diffe re nce s in che functions o f
language , with ‘func tion, be ing e quivale nt to Little me ntion is made o f
s e mantics , or o f language in the s ocial cons tr uction of re ality. Pe rhaps we are
still s e e ing here the after- effects o f the series of false e quations
language intra- organism = *compeiencev = explanation = high value
language inte r- organ is m = *pe r fo r m a nc e ’ = obs e r vation — low value

which re le gate d the social me a ning o fla ng ua g e to la ngua ge be haviour 1and

de nie d it the or e tical conte nt. A t al] e ve nts , notions like 'communicative
compe te nce ’ a nd ‘uses o f language 7 are re ally te mpor ar y s tructure s o f a
he uris tic kind (the y may als o re pre s e nt de ve lopme ntal strategies o f a child,
he uris tic in anothe r sense); they point the way to more ge ne r al notions . The
conce pt ‘uses o f language ' can le ad us to an inte r pr e tation o f func tion in the
sense of the unde r lying func tiona l or ganization o f the s e mantic system; that
o f'c o mmunic a tive compe te nce * to an a ppr e c ia tion o f the me a ning pote ntial
that is inhe r e nt in the s ocial system as it h inte rpr e te d by the me mbe r s o f this
or that s ubcultur e . T he conce pt of s ocial diale ct be come s more re ve aling
whe n it is re late d to more ge ne r al conce pts s uch as these (cf. Has an 1973).
Ma ny o f us w ho have wor ke d in re s e arch and de ve lopme nt proje cts
conce r ne d with the te aching o f Englis h as a mothe r tongue are convince d,
de spite Eng e lm a nn’s as s e rtion that ‘linguis tic the ory contains not a single
principle that is ne e de d in. the te aching s ituation* (p. 143) that a c o m ­
bina tio n o f insights dr awn fr om linguis tics , ps ychology and s ociology with
e ach othe r and with the te ache r’s profe s s ional expertise can re vitalize and in
100 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

fact is re vitalizing the e ducational process a t the points whe re this is mos t
needed* In the Schools Co unc il Pr ogr amme in Linguis tics a nd Englis h
T e aching, we trie d among othe r things to incorpor ate some s ociolinguis tic
unde r s tanding into o u r initial literacy pr ogr amme , which was a progr amme
de s igne d for ge ne ral use not as a compe ns atory exercise, though de ve lope d
with a speciaJ vie w to the childr e n who are mos t like ly to fail and tested first
in schools which face d ma jo r s ocial pr oble ms (Mac kay et al. 1970). The
authors r e mar k in the T eacher's M an u al:
Unlike psychology, ihe coniribuiions of linguistics, sociology and the study of
c hildr e n's lite r atur e have not yet be e n acce pte d e ithe r in the e duc a tion of
teachers or in research work. The search tor a theory of literacy is a search for a
way to br ing att ihe s « s tudie s toge the r a n d to balance the ir c o n (r ib u t\ons so that
no one of them is isolated* overeemphasized or omitted, (80)
These subjects are no t branche s o f e duca tional the ory a nd it w o uld be naive
to e xpe ct that e ve rything a Linguist or a ps ychologis t or s ociologis t has to say
holds some message for a te ache r o f language . Ne ve rthe le s s the de ve lop­
me nt of a ge ne ral s ociolinguis tic the ory, o r s ociology o f language , is, in­
dire ctly but unmis takably, o f fundame ntaJ s ignificance for the te ache r who
is face d with the pre s e nt critical s ituation in inner- city e ducation.
A child is one who is le ar ning how to me a n. He is growing up in the conte xt
o f a social s e miotic, the ne twor k o f me anings that cons titute the culture ; and
he has the ability to mas te r the system* As part o f the process, he learns a
linguis tic system, a par ticular family a nd ne ighbour hood variant o f a par ­
ticular s ociore gional diale ct o f a particular language ; it serves him we ll
e x panding to me e t e ach ne w de ma nd. Late r o n he move s into anothe r
me dium that o f wr itte n language - still as par t o f a continuous process* the
e xte ns ion o f his func tiona l me aning pote ntial; and he may le arn othe r
variants , othe r diale cts a nd e ve n othe r languages* All this may take place
without the cros s ing o f any ma jo r boundar ie s , as it typically doe s for the
middle- class child. B u t s e miotic systems can clas h; this is e s pe cially like ly to
happe n in a pluralis tic society ma r ke d, as Du m o n t (1 9 70 ) expresses it by
‘the contr adiction be twe e n the e galitar ian ide al . . . and [ the fact that]
difference^ diffe r e ntiation, te nds . . . to as sume a hie r archical aspect, and to
be come pe r mane nt o r he re ditary ine quality, or dis c r imina tion.1 T he child
be come s aware that his own s e miotic in conflict w ith tha t o f the s chool and
the do mina nt culture it re pres ents . It is this dis continuity and conflict that
Be r ns te m sees as the he art o f the pr oble m. Diffe r e nce s o f s ocial diale ct are
the n me re ly s ymptomatic; we d o not e ve n know whe the r the y necessarily
e nte r into the picture at all. But whe re the y do, the diale ct is the for m o f
re alization of patte rns o f s ocial me aning. In this way a s tudy o f s ocial diale cts
can be a source o f ins ight into the de e pe r issues involve d; and this book
make s a s olid contr ibution to the unde r s tanding o f the ir role .
The significance of Bernstein’s work
for sociolinguistic theory*

The work o f Bas il Be r ns te in has s ome time s be e n re fe rre d to as *a the ory of

e ducational failure ". T his seems to me mis le ading; the tr uth is both more ,
and less, than this implie s . Mor e , be caus c Be r ns te in's the or y is a theory
about society, how a s ocie ty persists and how it change s ; it is a the ory o f the
nature a nd processes o f cultur al trans mis s ion, and o ft h e essential par t that is
ptaye d by language the r e in. Educ a tio n is one o f the forms take n by the
trans mis s ion process, and mus t ine vita bJy be a m a jo r channe l for persistence
and change ; but there are othe r channe ls - a nd the e duc ation system its e lf is
s hape d by the s ocial s tructure . Less, be caus e Be r ns te in does not claim 10 be
providing a tota l e x pla nation o f che causes of e ducational failure ; he is
offe ring an inte r pr e tation o fo n e aspect o f it, the fact that the dis tr ibution of
failure is not r a nd o m b u t follows ce r tain known and s adly pre dictable
patte rns - by a nd large, it is a pr oble m which faces childre n of the lowe r
working class in large urban areas. Eve n here Be r ns te in is not trying to tell
the whole story; what he is do ing is to s upply the e s s e ntial link that was
mis s ing from ihe chain o f re le vant factors .
Ne ve rthe le s s , it is pe r haps ine vitable that Bernste iiTs work s hould be best
known thr ough its application to e ducational proble ms , since these are the
mos t s triking a nd the mos t public o f the issues w ith which he is conce rne d.
Afte r the relative confide nce o f fifte e n pos twar years, the 1960s we re
mar ke d by growing aware ne s s o f a crisis in e ducation, a re alization that it
was not e nough to e ns ure that all childre n were ade quate ly nouris he d and
s pe nt a ce rtain numbe r of years re ce iving for mal e duc ation in school. The
‘crisis consists in the discovery that large numbe r s o f childre n o f normai
inte llige nce who have always ha d e nough to e a t pass thr ough the school
system a nd come o ut as failure s . We say, ‘society has give n the m the
oppor tunity, a nd the y have faile d to re s pond to if ; we fe e l hur t, and we want
to know the re as on why. (T he for mula tion is not inte nde d to imply a lack of
ge nuine conce rn,)
Many pe ople are aware o f the existence of a hypothe s is tha t e ducational
failure is in some sense to be e x plaine d as linguis tic failure . Some thing has
gone wrong, it is sugge ste d, w ith the language . T his notion is in the air so to
s pe ak; and the s ource of it is to be found in Be r ns te in's work - e ve n though
the various forms in which it is moote d ofte n be ar little r e lation to Be m-
• F o r e w o r d (o Ba s il Be r ns te in (e d .} Class, codes and controi 2: appl i ed studi es tow ards a
sociology o f l anguage (L o n d o n : Ro u t le d g e St Ke g a n P a u l’ ] 9 7 3 ).
102 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e talion o f language

s te in’s ideas. T he te rms that have be come mos t wide ly curre nt are Bern*
s te in's ‘e laborate d code a nd 're stricted cade "; a nd in spite of the care which
Be rns te in ha s ta k^n to e mphas ize that ne ithe r is more highly value d than the
othe r, and that the hypothe s is is that both ar e necessary for successful living
- tho ug h the processes o f for mal e ducation may de ma nd the e laborate d code
- there is a wide s pre ad impre s s ion tha t Be r ns te in is saying (1 ) that s ome
childre n s pe ak e laborate d cod« a nd s ome childr e n s peak restricted code
and (2 ) tha t the latte r is an infe r ior fo r m of speech, a nd the re fore childre n
who s peak it are like ly co fail. With these is s ome time s c ompounde d a fur the r
dis tortion according to which e la bor ate d code is s ome how e quate d with
s tandard language and restricted code with nons tandar d. And the confus ion
is comptcle ,
B u i if there is confus ion it is be caus e there is s ome thing to be confus e d
about. T he difficulty is a very re al one , and it is this . If language is the key
factor, the primary channe l, in s ocialization, and if the for m take n by the
s ocialization process is (in part) re s pons ible for e duca tional failur e , the n
language is to b la m e ; there mus t be s ome thing wr ong about the language o f
the childre n who fail in s c hool So the re as oning goes. Eithe r the ir language
is de ficie nt in s ome way or, if not, the n it is so diffe re nt from the 're ce ive d5
Janguage o f the school (and, by im plication, o f the c o m m unity ) that it is o ^ / /
it was de ficie nt - it acts as a bar rie r to successful le ar ning a nd te aching. So we
find two ma in ve rsions o f the 'language fa ilur e ' the ory, a ‘de ficit’ version a nd
a ‘diffe re nce ’ ve rs ion; a nd these have be e n discussed at le ngth in the conte xt
o f ‘black Englis h’ in the Unit e d State s , whe re the proble m o f e ducational
failur e te nds to be pos e d in e thnic r athe r than in social class terms. T he
language failure the ory is s ome time s re fe rre d to Be r ns te in’s work, and he
has even be e n he ld re s pons ible for the de ficit ve rs ion o f the the ory, a lthough
nothing could be fur the r re move d from his own thinking* T he fact that
language failure is offe re d bo th as an inte r pr e tation of Be r ns te in's the or ie s
and as an alte rnative to the m s hows how comple x the issues are and how
easily they be come cloude d.
Le t us cons ide r the notion o f language failure . Ac cor ding to the de ficit
ve rs ion of the the ory, the child who fails in s chool fails be cause he has not got
e nough language . It the n be come s necessary to say whe re , in his language ,
the de ficie ncy It&s; and accor ding to linguis tic the ory there are four pos ­
s ibilitie s , although these are c ombina ble —the de ficie ncy might lie in more
than one : s ounds , words, cons tructions and me anings .
Probably few pe ople nowadays w o uld diagnos e the tr ouble as de ficie ncy
in s ounds , although the ‘o ur jo b is to te ach the m to talk pr ope r ly1 vie w o f
e ducation is still w ith us ' a nd might be take n to imply s ome such judge me nt
o f the case. If we leave this aside , the re are two variants o f the the ory, a nd
possibly a thir d: not e nough vocabulary, not e nough gr a mma r (o r ‘s truc­
tur e s ' in conte mpor ar y jar gon), a nd a rare r and rathe r s ophis ticate d alte r ­
native , not e nough me anings . (Pe rhaps we s hould re cognize anothe r var iant,
according to which the child has no language at all. This ca nnot s e rious ly be
caJIed a the or y; but some pe ople who w ould vigorous ly de ny it if it was put to
 Be r ns te in a nd s o c io ling uis tLC the or y 103

the m in that fo r m be have as if the y he ld this vie w —‘the y have be e n expos e d

to good Englis h, so obvious ly they have not the resources with which to
abs orb it / ) We have to take these views s e rious ly; they are he ld by serious-
minde d pe ople o f good fa ith who have thought abo ut the pr oble m and are
anxious to find a s olution. A t the same time it ne e ds to be said quite firmly
that the y are wrong.
T he re is no convincing e vide nce that childre n who fail in s chool have a
s malle r available vocabulary, or a less rich gr ammatica l system, tha n those
who s ucce e d Studie s me as ur ing the exte nt o f the vocabulary used by c h il­
dre n in the pe r for mance o f s pe cific tasks, though ve ry valuable , do no t tel] us
much about the ir total re sources; and for mulations of the ove rall size o f a
child's vocabulary te nd to conce al some d o ub t ful as s umptions about the
nature of language . In the first place }one cannot re ally s e parate vocabulary
from gr ammar ; the tw o for m a s ingle c ompone nt in the linguis tic system, and
me as uring one w ithout the othe r is mis le ading. It may we ll be that one
individual e xtends his pote ntial more by e nlar ging his gr ammatical
resources, while anothe r , o r the same individua l a t a diffe re nt time , does so
by b uilding up a large r vocabular y; a nd diffe re nt varie tie s of a language , for
e xam pie its s poke n a nd wr itte n forms , te nd to e xploit these resources
diffe r e ntially. Se cond, there are so ma ny pr oble ms in c ounting - how do we
de cide what a pe rs on have s aid, o r whe the r tw o things he d id say were
the same or diffe r e nt? - that it is har dly pos s ible to assess an individua l’s
linguis tic resources accurate ly in qua ntita tive te rms . Finally, eve n if we
could do so, it would tel] us very little about his linguis tic pote ntial, which
de pe nds only in the las t resort on the size of inve ntory. On e doe s n o t count
the gestures in orde r to e valuate the qualitie s o f an actor, or judge a
compos e r by the numbe r o f diffe r e nt chords and phras e s he uses; it is only
necessary to think o f the imme ns e var iation, a mong write rs , in the e xte nt o f
the linguis tic re s ource s the y typically de ploy. In othe r words , the re is no
re liable way o f s aying ‘this c hild has a s malle r linguis tic inve ntor y (tha n that
one o r than s ome pre s ume d s tandar d)"; and it w ould not he lp us much if we
could.
But there are more s e rious weaknesses in the de ficit the ory. If there is a
deficit^ we have to as k: it that the c hild has not got e no ug h language , or
that he doe s no t know how to use what he has ? But this que s tion is
me aningle s s . T he re is no sense in which we can m a int a in tha t he knows a
Jinguistic for m b ut ca nnot use it. ( O f cours e one may ge t the me aning o f a
word or a cons truction wrong, b u t that is not what the que s tion is a bout; in
that case one doe s not know it.) T he fact that we are le d to pose the que s tion
in this way is an indic ation o f the bas ic fallacy in the the ory, a fallacy the
nature o f which we ca n see e ve n more cle arly whe n we pose a nothe r
awkward que s tion: is the pre s ume d de ficit an individua l matte r , or is it
stibcuJturaJ? He r e we mus t as s ume the s e cond since (he for me r w ould not
offe r any e x pla nation o f the patte rn o f e duca tional failure . In othe r wards
the s uppos ition is that the re are groups o f pe ople - s ocial class groups , e thnic
groups , family type s or some othe r - w ho s e language is de ficie nt; in linguis tic
104 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

terms, that there are de ficie nt sociaJ diale cts . As s oon as we put it like that,
the fallacy be come s obvious . Unfor tuna te ly , as Joa n Ba r a tz pointe d out in a
s imilar conte xt (1 9 7 0 ) the ide a o f a de ficie nt diale ct is so pate ntly s e lf­
contr adictory and abs ur d that no linguis t has e ve r take n the tr ouble to de ny
it. Pe rhaps the time has come to make an e xplicit de nial.
We are le ft with the ‘diffe r e nce ve rs ion of the the ory. T his holds that
some childr e n’s language is diffe r e nt fr om othe r s this is unde niable , so the
que s tion is whe the r it is re le vant. If one c hild’s language diffe rs from
anothe r's , but ne ithe r is de ficie nt re lative to the othe r, wKy is one of the
childre n at a dis advantage ?
T he ans we r come s in two forms , one be ing a s tronge r variant o f the ocher.
We as sume that the diffe re nce is (hat be twe e n a diale ct and the s tandard
language (in linguis tic terms, be twe e n nons tandar d and s tandard dialects).
T he n, in the we ake r var iant, the child w ho s pe aks th« nons tandar d diale ct is
at a dis advantage because ce r tain conte xts de ma nd the use o f the s tandard.
Many such factors could be cite d, but the y te nd to fall unde r thre e he adings ;
(he te acher, the s ubje ct- matte r, and the system. T he child who speaks
nons tandard may be pe nalize d by the te ache r for doing so; he has to handle
mate rial pre s e nte d in the s tandar d language , for e x ample in te xtbooks ; and
he has to adjus t to an e ducational process a nd a way o f life that is largely or
entire ly conducte d in the s tandar d language . T his alre ady raises the odds
agains t him; a nd they are rais ed still highe r if we now take the s tronge r
variant o f the diffe re nce the ory, which adds the fur the r e x planation that
nons tandar d diale cts are dis cr iminate d agains t by society. In othe r words,
the s tandard language is re quire d not only by specific factors in the c hild’s
e ducation but als o by social pressures a nd pre judice s , which have the effect
that the c hild’s own mothe r tongue is dow ngr a de d and he is s te re otype d as
like ly to fail.
Now all this is ccrtainly true . More ove r, as Fre de rick Willia ms found in
te sting the Ste re otype hypothe s is 1 in the Unit e d State s the te ache r’s e x ­
pe ctations of a pupiJ’&pe rformance te nd to corr e s pond r athe r clos e ly to the
e xte nt to which that pupil's diale ct dive rge s fr om the s tandard - a nd c hil­
dre n, like adults , te nd to act o u t the ir s tereotypes; if you have de cide d in
advance that a child will fa il, he pr obably will (Willia m s 1970b). Many o ft h e
as s umptions o f the diffe r e nce the ory are jus tifie d, and these undoubte dly
play some part in e duca tional failur e .
B u t the re is still one que s tion unans we re d. If childre n are s uffe ring
because o f the ir diale ct, why do the y no t le ar n anothe r one ? Childr e n have
no difficulty in doing this ; in ma ny parts o f the wor ld it is quite c o mmo n fo r a
child to le ar n three or eve n four varie tie s o f his mothe r tongue . Rur a l
diale cts in Br ita in diffe r fr om the s tandar d muc h more wide ly than the urban
dialects do, e ithe r in Br ita in or in Ame r ic a; yet rural childre n do not have the
proble m, which is we ll known to be an ur ban one . Mor e ove r there is
cons ide rable e vide nce that these childre n who it is claime d, are failing
because they cannot handle the s tandar d language can imitate it perfe ctly
well outs ide the clas s room, and ofte n do. Pe r haps the n the pr oble m lies in
 Be r ns te in a nd s ociolinguis tic the or y 105

the wr itte n language : has the diale ct- s pe aking child a special difficulty in
le ar ning to re ad in the s tandar d? But here we are on e ve n we ake r ground,
because the Englis h writing system is s ple ndidly ne utral with re gard to
dialect. It is as well ada pte d to Glas we gian or Ha r le m speech as it is to
s tandard Britis h or Ame r ic a n; that is its gre at stre ngth. The re are no special
linguis tic proble ms involve d in le a r ning to r e a d jus t because one happe ns to
s peak a nons tandar d varie ty o f Englis h.
In othe r words , the ‘diffe re nce ’ ve rs ion of the language failure the ory doe s
not e x plain why diale c ⼘卜 s pe aking childre n come o ff b a d ly - fo r the very good
reason that the child who speaks a nons ta ndar d diale ct is not unde r any
linguis tic dis advantage at all. His dis advantage is a social one . T his does not
me an that it is not re al; but it me ans that it is mis le ading to treat if as if it was
linguis tic and to seek to apply linguis tic re me die s . Part o f the social dis ­
advantage lies in society's attitude s to language and to diale ct - including
those of the te acher, who may inte rpos e false notions about language which
create proble ms of a linguis tic natur e . But these are only manife s tations o f
patte rns in the s ocial s tructure ; the y do not add up to a linguis tic e x planation
of the facts.
So the language failure the ory, in b o th its versions, s tands re je cte d. We
have re move d all linguis tic conte nt fr om the hypothe s is about e ducational
failure . T he fault rests ne ithe r with language as a system (the de ficit ve rs ion)
nor with language as an ins titution (the diffe re nce ve rs ion); the e x planation
is a social one (a nd, in Be r ns te in’s words , ‘e duca tion cannot compe ns ate for
society’). An d he re , in my o w n thinking, the matte r rested, for a c on­
side rable time ; I did not acce pt that the re was any es s entially linguis tic
e le me nt in the s ituation.
B u t re cons ide ring in the light of Be r ns te in’s wor k, e s pe cially his more
recent thinking we can see that the que s tion ‘de ficit o r diffe r e nce ?' is the
wr ong que s tion. It is not what the issue is about. If we look a t the re sults of
inve s tigations carrie d out by Be r ns te in and his colle ague s , as re porte d in the
present volume , and in othe r monographs in the series, we find that these
s tudie s re ve al ce r tain diffe re nce s which corre late s ignificantly w ith social
class; these diffe re nce s are the r e and the y are in s ome sense linguis tic - they
have to do with language . B u t the diffe re nce s do not us ually appe ar undis ­
guis ed in the linguis tic forms , the grammar a n d vocabulary, o f the c hildr e n’s
speech. They are, rathe r, diffe re nce s o f inte r pr e tation, e valuation^ o r ie n­
tation, on the part o f the childr e n and o f the ir mothe rs . Eve n whe re the pr i­
mary data are dr awn fr om s ample s o f childr e n's s pontane ous s peech, a nd this
is analys e d in linguis tic te rms the focus o f atte ntion is always o n the pr in­
ciple s of the social func tioningo fla ng ua g e . T wo fe ^tur e s of the research s tand
out in this conne ction. On e is the e mphas is o n 'critical s ocializing contexts\
as Be r ns te in has de fine d a nd ide ntifie d the m: ge ne ralize d s ituation types
which have greatest s ignificance for the child's s ocialization a nd for his
inte rpre tation o f e xpe rie nce . T he othe r is the focus on the variable junc tio n
of language within these conte xts , a nd on the func tiona l me aning pote ntial
that is available to, a nd typically e x ploite d by, the c hild w ho is participating.
106 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

Wha t Be r ns te in’s work suggests is that there may be diffe re nce s in the
relative or ie nta tion o f diffe r e nt social gr oups towards the various functions
o f language in give n contexts, a nd towar ds the diffe r e nt are as o f me aning
that may be e xplor e d within a give n function. No w if this is so, the n whe n
these diffe re nce s manife s t the ms e lve s in the conte xts that are critical for the
s ocialization process the y may have a pr ofound e ffe ct on the child's social
le arning; and the re fore on his re spons e to e ducation, be caus e built into the
e duc ationa l process are a numbe r o f as s umptions and practices tha t reflect
diffe re ntially no t only the value s but als o the communic a tio n patte rns and
le arning styles o f diffe re nt s ubculture s . As Be r ns te in has pointe d out, not
only does this te nd to favour ce r tain mode s o f le a r ning ove r othe rs , b ut it
aJso creates for some childre n a continuity o f cultur e be twe e n home and
s chool which it large ly de nie s to othe rs .
T his puts the que s tion of the role of language in a diffe re nt light. We can
inte r pr e t the code s fr om a linguis tic po int o f vie w, as diffe re nce s o f or ie n­
tation within the total s e miotic pote ntia l. T he re ts evide nce in Be rns te in's
work that diffe r e nt s ocial groups or s ubculture s place a high value on
diffe r e nt orde rs of me aning. He nce diffe re nce s arise in the pr omine nce
accorde d to one or anothe r s ocios e mantic ‘s e t o r me aning pote ntia l within
a give n conte xt. For any particular s ubcultur e , ce r tain functions of language ,
or areas o f me aning within a give n func tion may receive re lative ly gre ate r
e mphas is ; these will ofte n reflect value s which are implicit and s ubme rge d,
but in othe r ins tance s the value s might be e xplicitly re cognize d - s uch
diffe r e nt conce pts as 'fe llows hip.. *soul\ 4blarney\ *brow (highbr ow, low*
br ow), suggest ce rtain functional c r ie nta tio ns which m ig h t we ll be e x amine d
from this s tandpoint. An d the re will be othe r orde rs o f me aning, a nd othe r
functions o f Language, that are re lative ly less highly value d a nd receive Less
e mphas is . In ge ne ral this doe s not matte r . B u t le t us now s uppos e that the
s e miotic mode s that are re lative ly stressed by one gr oup are pos itiv e with
respect to the s chool ⼀一the y are fa vour e d and e xte nde d in the e ducational
process, e ithe r inhe r e ntly o r be cause this is how e duca tion has come to be
actualize d - while thos e that are re lative ly stressed by anothe r gr oup arc
large ly irre le vant, ore v Gnne gatiy e ^ in the e duca tional conte xt. We the n have
a plaus ible inte r pr e tation o f the role of Language in e duca tional failure . It is,
ce rtainly, much ove rs implifie d* as we have s tate d it here. But it places la n­
guage in a perspective tha t is re le vant to e ducation - na me ly as the ke y factor
in cultur al trans mis s ion - ins te ad o f is olating it as if it we re s ome thing on its
own.
T his is s ome what re move d fr om the notion of la ng ua g e failur e 1, in e ithe r
the de ficit o r the diffe re nce versions. We have had to dir e ct a tte ntion be yond
the forms o f language , be yond accent a n d diale ct a n d the mor phologic al and
s yntactic particulars o f this or that varie ty o f Englis h, o n to me aning and
social function. O f cours e Ihe re ar e myths a nd mis conce ptions about, and
attitude s towards , the forms of language , a nd these e nte r into a nd c o m ­
plicate the picture. It is impor ta nt to make it cle ar that s peakers o f Englis h
■who have no initial h or no pos tvocalic r no ve r bal s ubs titute o r no de finite
 Be r ns te in a nd s ociolinguis tic Theory 107

article or no s on the thir d pe rs on s ingular pre s e nt tense, arc not verbal

de fe ctives (if they ar e , the n we all ar e since any s uch list could always be
made u p - a s this one w a s —o f s tandard as we ll as nons tanda r d fe ature s ); nor
is the unde r lying logic of one g r o up any diffe r e nt from that o f anothe r . But
jus t as the language e le me nt in e duca tional failure cannot be re duced to a
que s tion o f linguis tic forms , so als o it cannot be wholly re duced to one o f
attitude s to those for ms a nd the ste re otype s that re s ult fr om the m. It cannot
be re duce d to a conce pt o f linguis tic failure at all.
How e ve r if we re je ct the e quation ‘e ducationa l failure ; linguis tic fa il­
ure \ this doe s not me an that we re je ct any inte r pr e tation o f the pr oble m in
linguis tic te rms ‘ Language is ce ntral to Be r ns te in’s the ory; b ut in orde r to
unde r s tand the place that it occupie s , it is necessary to think o f language as
me aning rathe r than o f language as s tructure . T he pr oble m can the n be seen
lo be one o f linguis tic success rathe r tha n linguis tic failur e . Eve ry nor mal
child has a fully functional linguis tic s ys te m; the difficulty is that o f re con­
ciling one func tiona l or ie nta tio n w ith anothe r . T he re me dy will not Lie in the
adminis tr ation o f conce ntrate d doses of linguis tic s tructure . It m ay lie, in
part in the br oade ning o f the functional pe rs pe ctive - that o f the s chool, as
much as that o f the individua l pupiL T his , in tur n de mands a br oade ning o f
our own conce ptions , especiaUy our conce ptions o f me a ning and of la n­
guage . N o t the least o f Be rns le in^s contr ibutions is the part that his work,
and that o f his colle ague s , has playe d in br inging this about.
Language as social semiotic

1 I ntr oductory
Sociolinguis tics s ome time s appe ars to be a search for ans we rs which have no
que s tions . Let as the re fore e nume r ate at this point s ome o f the que s tions
that do seem to ne e d ans we ring.
1 How <jo pe ople de code ihe highly conde ns e d utte rance s o f everyday
speech, a nd how do ihe y use the sociaJ system for doing so?
2 How do pe ople reveal the ide ational and inte rpe r s onal e nvir onme nt
within which what the y are s aying is to be inte r pr e te d? In othe r words, how
do they cons truct the social conte xts in which me aning takes place?
3 How do pe ople relate the social conte xt to the linguis tic s ys te m? In
othe r words , how do they de ploy the ir me a ning pote ntia l in actual semantic
exchange s?
4 How and why do pe ople o f diffe r e nt social class or othe r s ubcultural
groups de ve lop diffe r e nt diale ctal varie tie s and diffe re nt orie ntations
to w a r d s m e a n in g ?
5 How far are childre n o f diffe re nt social groups e xpos e d to diffe re nt
ve rbal patte rns o f primary s ocialization, and how doe s this de te r mine their
reactions to s e condary s ocialization e s pe cially in s chool?
6 How and why do childre n le arn the functional- s e mantic system o f the
adult language ?
7 How do childr e n, thr ough the or dinar y eve ryday linguis tic inte r action
of family and peer ^r o up, come to le ar n the basic patte rns o f the culture : the
social s tructure , the systems o f knowle dge and o f value s, and the diverse
e le me nts o f the social s e miotic?

2 Elements of a sociosemiotic theory of language

There are ce rtain ge ne ral conce pts which seem to be e s s e ntial ingre die nts in
a s ocios e miotic the ory of language . Thes e are the text, the s ituation, the text
varie ty or register, the code (in Be r ns te in’s sense), the linguis tic system
(inciuding the s e mantic s ys te m), and the social s tructure.

2 .1 T ext
Le t us be gin with the conce pt o f te x t, the ins tance s o f linguis tic inte raction in
which pe ople actually e ngage : whate ve r is said* or writte n, in an ope rational
 Language as social s cmioiic 109

c o n t e x t , a s d is t in c t fr o m a c it a t io n a l c o n t e x t lik e t h a t o f w o r d s lis t e d in a
dictionary.
F o r s ome purpos e s it may suffice to conccivc of a text as a kind of
'supersentence*, a linguis tic unit that is in principle gre ate r in size than a
sentence but o f the s ame kind. It has long be e n cle ar, howe ve r, that dis ­
course has its own scructure that is not cons titute d out o f sentence s in
c ombina tion; and in a s ociolinguis tic pe rs pe ctive il is more us e ful to think o f
text as e ncode d in sentences, no t as compos e d o f the m. (He nce what
Cicour e l (1 9 6 9 ) refers to as omis s ions by the s pe ake r are not so much
omis s ions as e ncodings which the he are r can de code be cause he shares the
principle s o f r e a lizaiion that provide the key to the code .) In othe r words, a
text is a s e mantic unit; it is the basic unit o f the s e mantic process.
At the same time , text re pre s e nts choice . A text is *what is m e a nt selected
from the total set o f opiio ns that c oas iituie what can be me ant. In othe r
words, te xt can be de fine d a& actualize d me a ning pote ntial.
T he me aning pote ntial, which is the par adigmatic range of s e mantic
choice that is present in the system, and to which the me mbe r s o f a culture
have access in the ir language , can be characte r ize d in tw o ways, cor­
re s ponding to MaHnows ki s dis tinction be twe e n the "context of s ituation'
and the ‘conte xt o f c ultur e ' (19 23, 1935). Inte rpre te d in the conte xt o f
culture , it is ihe e ntire s e mantic system of the language . T his is a fiction,
s ome thing we cannot hope to de s cribe . Inte rpre te d in the conte xt of s itu­
ation t it is the particular s e mantic system, or set of subsystems., which is
associated with a par ticular type o f s ituation or social conte xt. T his too is a
fiction; but it is s ome thing tha t may be more easily de s cribable (cf. 2.5
be low). Jn s ociolinguis tic te rms the me a ning pote ntial can be re pre s e nte d as
the range o f options (hat is characte ris tic o f a specific s ituation type.

2 .2 S ituation
The s ituation is the e nvir onme nt in which the text come s lo life . T his is a
well- established conce pt in linguis tic going back a t least to We ge ne r
(1885). It playe d a ke y part in Ma linow s ki’s e tfinogr aphy of language , unde r
the name of ‘conte xt o f s ituation"; Ma linows ki's notions were furthe r
de ve lope d and made e x plicit by Firth (1 9 5 7 ,1 8 2 ) who mainta ine d that the
conte xt o f s ituation was not to be inte rpr e te d in concre te te rms as a sort of
audiovis ual re cord o f the s ur r ounding 'pr ops but was, rathe r , an abstract
re pre s e ntation o f the e nvir onme nt in te rms o f ce r tain ge ne ral cate gorie s
having re le vance to the text. The conte xt o f s ituation may be totally re mote
from what is going on r ound about dur ing the act of s pe aking or o f writing.
It will be necessary to re pre s e nt the s ituation in still more abs tract te rms if
it is to have a place in a ge ne ral s ociolinguis tic the ory; and to conce ive o f it
not as s ituation but as s itua lion/ype , in the sense o f what Be r ns te in refers to
as a "social context*. T his is, e s s e ntially, a s e miotic s tructure . It is a c on­
s te llation o f me anings de riving fr om the s e miotic system that cons titute s the
culture .
If it is true that a he ar e r, give n the right infor ma tio n can make sensible
110 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

guesses about what the s pe ake r is going to me a n —and this seems a necessary
as s umption, s e e ing Chat communic ation does take place — the n this *right
info r ma tio n’ is whai we me an by the s ocial conte xt. !t cons is ts o f those
general prope rtie s of the s ituation which colle ctive ly function as the deter-
minants o f text, in that they specify the s e inanlic configur ations that the
s peaker will typically fas hion in conte xts o f ihe give n type-
However,. s uch infor ma tio n re late s not only ‘dow nw a r d to the text but
also ‘upwar d’ to the linguis tic s yste m and to the s ocial system. T he S it u ­
ation" is a the ore tical s ocioJinguistic cons truct; it is for this re as on that we
inte rpre t a particular s ituation type or social conte xt, as a s e miotic s tructure.
Tire se miotic s tructure of a s ituation type can be re pre s e nte d as a comple x of
three dime ns ions : the o ngo ing s ocial activity, the role re lations hips
involve d, and the s ymbolic or rhe torical channe l. We re fe r to these respec­
tively as ‘fie ld ' ‘te nor and ^mode 1(follo wing Ha llid a y e ta l, 1964, as m o d i­
fied by Spe nce r and Gre gor y 196 4 and cf, Gr e gory 1967). T he fie ld is the
social action in which the te xt is e mbe dde d; it include s the subje ct- matte r, as
one s pe cial manife s tation. T he te nor is the set o f role re lations hips among
the re le vant par ticipants ; it include s le vels of for mality as one par ticular
instance. 丁he mode is the channe l or wave le ngth selected, whic h is essen­
tially the function lh a t is assigned to language in the total s tructure o f the
s ituation; it include s the me dium (s poke n or wr itte n), which is e xpLaine d as a
functional var iable . { C t above , chapte r 1, p- 33, a nd chapte r 3, pp. 62- 4.)
Fie ld, te nor a nd mode are not kinds o f Language use* aor are they s imply
compone nts o f the speech setting. T he y are a conce ptual fr ame wor k for
re pre s e nting the social conte xt as the 汉miotic e nvir onme nt in which pe ople
exchange me anings . Give n an ade quate s pe cification o f the s e miotic pr o p­
erties of the conte xt in te rms o f fie ld, te nor and mode we s houtd be able to
make sensible pre dictions about the s e mantic prope r tie s o f te xts as sociated
with ii‘ T o do this , howe ve r, re quire s an inte rme diar y level - s ome conce pt
of text varie ty, or register.

2.3 Re gister
The te rm ‘register’ was firs t us e d in this sense, that of text varie ty, by Re id
(1 95 6); the conce pt was take n up and de ve lope d by Je an JJve (Ur e and Ellis
1972), a nd inte rpre te d within HiiV s (1 9 5 8 ) ‘ins titutional linguis tic
fr ame wor k by HalJiday et a i. (19 64 ). T he register is the s e mantic varie ty o f
which a text may be re garde d as an ins tance .
Lik e othe r re lated conce pts , such as 's pe e ch variant* a nd 4(s ociolinguis tic)
code ’ (Fe r gus on 1971, chs. 1 and 2 ; Gum p e r z 1971, part I), register was
originally conce ive d o f in le x icogrammatical te rms . Ha llid a y et a l, (1 9 6 4 )
drew a primary dis tinction be twe en two type s o f language varie ty: diale ct,
which they de fine d as varie ty accor ding to the user, and register, which they
de fine d as varie ty accor ding to the use. The diale ct is what a pe rs on s peaks
de te r mine d by who he is; the register is what a pe rs on is speakings de te r ­
mine d by what he is doing at the time . T his ge ne ral dis tinction can be
acce pted but ins te ad o f characte r izing a register large ly by its lexico-
 Language as social s e miotic 111

gr ammatical prope rtie s , we s hall suggest, as with te xt, a more abs tract
de finition in s e mantic te rms. (Se e table 1, p. 35.)
A register ca n be de fine d as the configur a tion o f s e mantic resources that
the me mbe r o f a cultur e typically associates with a s ituation type . It is the
me aning pote ntial that is accessible in a give n s ocial conte xt. Bo t h the
s ituation and the register associated with it can be de s cribe d to varying
degress o f s pe cificity; but the existence o f registers is a fact of e ve ryday
e xpe rie nce - s pe ake rs have no difficulty in re cognizing the s e mantic options
and combina tions of options that are ‘at r is k’ unde r particular e nvir on­
me ntal conditions . Since these o ptio ns are re alize d in the for m o f gr ammar
and vocabulary, the re gis te r is re cognizable as a particular s e le ction o f words
and structures . But it is de fine d in te rms o f me anings ; it is not a n aggregate o f
conve ntional forms o f e xpre s s ion s upe rpos e d on s ome unde r lying conte nt
by ‘social factors ’ o f one kind or anothe r . It is the s e le ction o f me anings that
cons titute s the varie ty to which a text belongs.

2 .4 Code
‘Co d e ’ is us e d here in Be r ns te in’s sense; it is the principle o f s e miotic
or ganization gove r ning the choice o f me anings by a s pe ake r a nd the ir
inte rpre tation by a he are r. The code contr ols the s e mantic styles o f the
culture .
Code s are no t varie tie s of language as diale cts and registers are. The
code s are, so to s pe ak, ‘above ’ the linguis tic system; the y are types o f social
s e miotic or s ymbolic orde rs o f me aning ge ne r ate d by the s ocial system (cf.
Has an 1973). The code is actualize d in language thr ough the register, since it
de te r mine s the s e mantic OTientation o f s pe ake rs in particular social c o n ­
texts; Be r ns te in^ own use o f ‘variant* (as in ^e laborate d va r ia nt1) refers to
thos e characteris tics o f a re gis te r which de rive fr om the for m o f the code .
Wh e n the s e mantic systems o f the language are activate d by the s ituational
de te r mina nts o f text - the fie ld, te nor a nd mode - this proce ss is r e gulate d by
the codes.
He nce the code s tr ans mit, or c ontr ol the tr ans mis s ion of, the unde r lying
patte rns o f a cultur e o r s ubcultur e , acting thr ough the s ocializing age ncie s of
family, pe e r gr oup a n d s chool. As a c hild come s to atte nd to and inte rpr e t
me a ning s in the conte xt o f s ituation a nd in the conte xt of cultur e , at the
same time he take s ove r the code . The c ultur e is tr ans mitte d to him with the
code acting as a filter^ de fining a nd ma king accessible the s e miotic principle s
o f his own s ubculture , so that as he le arns the culture he also le ar ns the gr id
or s ubcultur al angle o n ihe social system. T he c h ild ’s linguis tic e xpe rie nce
reveals the cultur e to him thr ough the code t a nd so tr ans mits the code as part
o f the culture .

2.5 T he lirtguis uc system

Wit h in the linguis tic s ys te m it is the s e m antic system that is o f primary
conce rn in a s ociolinguis tic conte xt. Le t us as s ume a mo de l o f language with
a s e mantic, a le x icogrammatical a nd a phonologic a l s tratum; this is the ba s k
112 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e ta tion of language

patte rn unde r lying the (ofte n s upe rficially more comple x ) inte rpr e tations o f
language in the work of T r ube tzkoy, Hje lms Je v, Fir th, Jakobs on, Martine t,
Pottie r Pike , La mb, La k o ff and McCawle y (a mong many othe r s ). We can
the n a dopt the ge ne ral conce ption o f the or ganization o f e ach s tratum and
o f the r e alization be twe e n s trata, tha t is e mbodie d in La m b ’s s tratification
the ory (La m b 1971; 1974).
T he s e mantic system is La m b 's ^s e mological s tiatum*; it is conce ive d of
here, howeve r, in func tiona l r athe r tha n in cognitive te rms . The conce ptual
fr ame wor k was alre ady re fe rre d to in chapte r 3t w ith the te rms id e a t io n a l1,
‘inte rpe r s onal’ and ‘te x tual . Thes e are to be inte r pr e te d not as functions in
the sense o f "uses o f language 7, b ut as func tiona l compone nts o f the s e mantic
system - "me tafunctions Tas we have calle d the m. (Since in respect both of
the s tratal and o f the functional or ganization o f the linguis tic system we are
adopting a te rnary inte r pr e tation rathe r than a binary one , we s hould
pe rhaps e xplicitly dis avow any particular adhe r e nce to the magic numbe r
three. In fact the func tiona l inte r pr e tation could jus t as re adily be state d in
te rms o f four compone nts ^ since the ide ationa l compris e s two dis tinct s ub­
parts, the e xpe rie ntial and the logical; see Ha llid a y 1973; 1976; als o chapte r
7 be low.)
Wh a t are these func tiona l compone nts o f the s e mantic system? T he y are
the mode s o f me aning lh a t are present in every use o f language in every
social conte xt. A text is a pr oduc t o f all thre e ; it is a polyphonic compos ition
in which diffe re nt s e mantic me lodie s are inte rwove n, to be re alize d as
inte grate d le x icogrammatical s tructure s . Ea c h func tiona l compone nt con-
tribute s a band o f s tructure to the whole .
T he ide ationa l function re presents the s pe ake r ’s me aning pote ntial as an
obs e r ve r It is the conte nt function o f language language as 'a bout s ome ­
thing'. T his is the c ompone nt thr ough which the language e ncode s the
cultur al e xpe rie nce , a n d the s pe ake r e ncode s his own individual expe rience
as a me mbe r o f the cultur e . It expresses the phe nome na o f the e nvironme nt:
the things - cr e atur e s , obje cts , actions , events^ qualitie s , states aa d re lations
- o f the worid and o f our own cons cious ne ss , including the phe nome non of
language itself; and als o the *me taphe nome na the things tha t are already
e ncode d as facts and as re ports . All these are par t o f the ide ationa l me aning
o f language .
T he inte rpe rs onal c ompone nt re pre s e nts the s pe ake r ’s me a ning pote ntial
as an intrude r. It is the participatory func tion o f language , language as doing
s ome thing. T his is the c ompone nt thr ough which the s pe ake r intrude s
hims e lf into the conte xt o f s ituation, both e xpre s s ing his own altitude s and
judge me nts a nd se e king to influe nce the attitude s a nd be ha viour o f others.
It expresses the role re lations hips as s ociate d w ith the s ituation, including
those tha t are de fine d by language itself, re lations hips o f questioner-
r e s ponde nt intformer- doubter a nd the like . These cons titute the inte r­
pe rs onal me a ning o f language .
T he te xtual compone nt re pre s e nts the s pe ake r's te xt- forming pote ntial; it
is that which make s language re le vant. T his is the c ompone nt which provide s
 Language as s ocial s e miotic 113

the te xture ; that which make s the diffe re nce be twe e n language that is
s us pe nde d m v acuo a nd language tha t is ope r a tional in a conte x t o f s ituation.
It expresses the r e la tion o f the language to its e nvir onme nt, inc luding both
the ve rbal e nvir onme nt - what has be e n s aid or wr itte n be fore - and the
nonve rbaJ, s ituational e nvir onme nt. He nce the te xtual c ompone nt has an
e na bling func tion with respect to the othe r two; it is only in co mbina tion witK
te xtual me anings that ideatioTiaf a nd inte rpe rs onal me anings are actualize d.
These compone nts are re fle cte d in the le xicogrammatical system in the
fo r m o f discrete ne tworks of options . In the claus e , for e x ample , the
ide ational func tion is re pre s e nte d by trans itivity, the inte rpe rs onal by mood
and modality, a nd the te xtual by a set of systems that have be e n re fe rre d
to colle ctive ly as *theme\ Ea c h o f these three sets o f options is characte rize d
by s trong inte r nal but we ak e xte rnal cons traints : for e x a mple any choice
made in trans itivity has a s ignificant effect on othe r choiccs within the
trans itivity systems, but has ve ry little e ffe ct o n choice s w it hin the mo o d or
the me systems. He nee the functional or ganization o f me aning in language is
built in to ihe core o f the linguis tic system, as the mos t ge ne ral or ganizing
principle o f the le x icogrammatical stratum*

2 .6 S ocial structure
O f the nume r ous ways in whic h the social s tructure is implicate d in a
s ociolinguis tic the ory, the re are three which s tand out. In the first place, it
de fine s and gives s ignificance to the various type s o f social conte xt in which
me anings are e xchange d. T he diffe r e nt social groups a nd co mmunica tion
ne tworks tha t de te r mine what we have calle d the ‘te nor —the status and role
re lations hips in the s ituation - are obvious ly products of the s ocial s tructure ;
but so aJso in a more general sense are the type s o f s ocial activity that
cons titute the ‘fie ld ’. Eve n the 4mode\ the rhe torical channe l w ith its associ­
ated strategies, though more imme diate ly re fle cte d in linguis tic patte rns , has
its origin in the social s tructure ; it is the social s tructure that ge ne rate s the
s e miotic te ns ions and the rhe torical styJes a nd genres that express them
(Bar the s 1970).
Se condly, thr ough its e mbodime nt in the type s o f role r e la tions hip within
the familyv the s ocial s tructure de te r mine s the various fa milia l patte rns o f
c ommunic ation; it re gulate s the me anings and me a ning styles tha t are
associated with give n social contexts, including those conte xts tha t are
critical in the processes o f cultur al trans mis s ion. In this way. the social
s tructure de te rmine s , thr ough the inte r me diar y o f language , the for ms take n
by the s ocialization o f the child. (Se e Be r ns te in 1971; 1975- )
T hirdly, and mos t pr oble matically, the s ocial s tructure ente rs in thr ough
the e ffe cts o f social hie rarchy, in the for m of caste o r class. T his is obvious ly
the backgr ound to social diale cts , which are bo th a dire ct manife s tation o f
social hie rarchy and als o a s ymbolic e xpre s s ion of it, ma inta ining a nd r e in­
for cing it in a varie ty o f ways: for e xample , the as s ociation o f diale ct with
r e gis te r - the fact that ce r tain registers conve ntiona lly call for ce rtain diale c­
tal mode s - expresses the r e lation be twe e n s ocial classes and the divis ion o f
114 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e ta tion o f Language

labour . In a more pe rvas ive fas hion, the s ocial s tructure is pre s e nt in the
forms o f s e miotic inte r action, a nd be come s appa r e nt thr ough incongr uitie s
and dis turbance s in the s e mantic system. Linguis tics seems now to have
large ly a ba ndone d its fe ar o f impur ity a nd come to grips w ith what is calle d
‘fuzzine s s in Language; but this has be e n a logical rathe r (ban a sociological
conce pt, a de par tur e fr o m an ide al re gularity rathe r than an organic pr op­
e rty of s ocios e miotic systems. The 4fuzzine s s ' o f language is in pa r t an
e xpre s s ion o f the dynamics a nd the te ns ions o f the s ocial system* It is not
only the text (w ha t pe ople me a n) b u t als o the s e mantic system (w ha t they
can me a n) tha t e mbodie s the ambiguity, antagonis m, impe r fe ction, ine qual­
ity and change that characte rize the s ocial s yste m and s ocial s tructure . T his is
not ofte n s ys te matically e x plor e d in linguis tics , though it is fa milia r e nough
to s tude nts o f c ommunic a tio n a nd o f ge ne ral semantics* and to the public at
large. It could pr obably be fr uitfully appr oache d thr ough an e xte ns ion o f
Be r ns te in's the ory o f code s (cf. Dougla s 197 2). The social s tructure is not
jus t an or name ntal ba c kgr ound to linguis tic inte r action, as it has te nde d to
l>ecome in s ociolinguis tic discussions* It is an e s s e ntial e le me nt in the e volu*
tion o f s e mantic systems and s e mantic processes.

3 A sociolinguistic view of semantics

In this s ection we s hall cons ide r three aspects of a s ociological se mantics: the
s e mantics o f s ituation types, the r e lation o f the s ituation to the s e mantic
system, and the s ocios e mantics o f language de ve lopme nt. T he discus s ion
will be illus tr ate d fr om a s ociolinguis tic s tudy o f e arly language de ve lop­
me nt,

3.1 T he se m antics o f s ituation types

A s ociological s e mantics implie s no t so much a ge ne ral de s cr iption o f the
s e mantic system o f a language but rathe r a set o f context- specific s e mantic
descriptions^ e ach one characte r izing the me a ning pote ntial thac is typically
as sociate d w ith a give n s ituation type . In othe r words , a s e mantic de s cription
is the de s cription o f a register.
T his appr oach has be e n us e d to gre at e ffe ct by T ur ne r in a num be r o f
s tudie s car rie d out unde r Be r ns te in’s dir e ction m Lo ndo n (T ur ne r 1973).
T ur ne r ’s conte xts in the ms e lve s are highly s pe cific; he cons tructs s e mantic
ne twor ks re pre s e nting, for e x a mple , the options take n u p by mothe r s in
response to particular que s tions abo ut the ir c hild contr ol strategies. A t the
s ame time the y are highly ge ne ral in the ir applic ation, bo th be cause o f the
size o ft h e s ample inve s tigate d a nd, more e s pe cially, be caus e o ft h e s ociolog­
ical inte r pr e tation that is put upon the data, in te rms o f Bcrns te in^s the orie s
o f cultur a l trans mis s ion and s ocial change . (Se e figure 1, pp. 82- 3.)
T he s ociolinguis tic notion o f a s ituation type* o r social conte xt, is variable
in ge ne rality, and may be conce ive d o f as cove ring a gre ate r o r s malle r
numbe r o f pos s ible ins tance s. So the s e ts o f s e mantic options that cons titute
the me aning pote ntia l as sociate d with a s ituation type may also be more or
 Language as s ocial s e miotic 115

less ge ne ral. Wh a t characte rize s this pote ntia l is its tr uly 'socioLtnguistic*
natur e , A s e mantics o f this kind for ms the inte rface be twe e n the s ocial
system and the linguis tic s ystem; its e le me nts re alize s ocial me anings and are
re alize d in linguis tic forms . Ea c h o ptio n in the s e mantic ne twork, in othe r
words , in inte r pr e te d in the s e miotics o f the s ituation and is als o re pre s e nte d
in the le x icogrammar o f the te xt. (Note that this is not e quiva le nt t o s aying
that th« e ntire s e miotic s tructure o f the s ituation is re pre s e nte d in the
s e mantic options and he nce also in the text which is ce rtainly not tr ue .)
Figure 9 (pp. 118- 20) shows an outline s e mantic ne twor k for a par ticular
s ituation type , one tha t falls within the ge ne r al conte xt o f c hild play; more
s pecifically, it is tha t of a s mall c hild ma nip ula ting ve hicular toys in interac-
tion with an adult. T he ne twor k s pecifies s ome o f Che principal options ,
toge the r with the ir pos s ible r e alizations . The options de rive fr om the ge n­
e ral func tiona l compone nts of the s e mantic system (2.5 above ) a nd are
re adily inte rpre table in te rms of the gr a mma r o f Englis h; we have not
atte mpte d to re pres ent the me aning pote ntial o f the adult in the s ituation,
b ut only that of the child. T he ne tworks re late , in t ur n to a ge ne ral descrip^
tion o f Englis h, m o d ifie d to take account of the child's stage o f de ve lopme nt.

3 .2 S tructure o f the s ituatio n, and its re lation to the s e m antic system

T he s e miotic s tructure o f a s itua tion type can be re pre s e nte d in te rms o f the
thre e ge ne r al conce pts o f fie ld, te nor a nd m a d e (cf. 2.2 above ). T he ‘child
p!ay’ s itua tion type tha t was s pe cifie d by the s e mantic ne twor ks in figure 9
might be characte rize d, by re fe re nce to these conce pts , in s ome thing like (he
follo wing manne r :

Fie ld Ch ild at play: ma nipula ting mova ble obje cts (whe e le d ve hicle s )
with re late d fixtures, as sis ted by adult; concurr e ntly as s ociating (i) s imilar
past e ve nts , (ii) s imilar abs e nt obje cts also e valuating obje cts in te rms o f
e ach othe r and o f processes.
T e nor Sma lt.c hild a nd par e nt inte racting: child de te r mining course o f
action, (i) a nno unc ing own inte ntions , (ii) contr olling actions of par e nt;
concurr e ntly s haring a nd s e e king cor r obor a tion o f own e xpe rie nce with
pare nt.
M ode Spoke n, alte rnate ly monolo gue a nd dialogue * tas k- orie nte d;
pr agmatic, (i) re fe rring to processes a nd obje cts o f s ituation, (ii) re lating to
a nd fur the r ing child's own actions , <iii) de ma nding othe r obje cts ; inte rpos e d
with narrative a nd e xplor ator y de m e nts .

Be low is a s pe cime n o f a te xt having thes e s e miotic prope rtie s . It is take n

fr om a study of the language de ve lopme nt of one s ubje ct, Nige l, fr om nine
months to three a nd a ha lf ye ars ; the passage s e le cte d h fr om age 1;11.
[ Note : = falling tone = ris ing t o n e ;w= fall- rise tone ; tonic nucle us falls on
s yllable s ha ving tone mar ks ; tone gr oup bounda r ie s within an utte rance
s hown by . . . . For analys is of intona tio n, cf. Ha liida y 1967a.]
Nigel [small wooden train in hand, approaching track laid along a plank sloping
116 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e ta tion o f language

from chair to fioor}: Here the railway line . . , but it not for ihe Uhin to goon that.
Father: Is n’t it?
Nigei: Y^s ils I wonder the train will carry the lorry [puts (rain on lorry (sic)].
Father: I w onde r .
Nigel: Oh yes it will— I don't want to send the train on this flo o r ... you want to
send the train on the railway line it up plank onto chair] . •, but it doesn’t go
very well on the chair. • , . {makes train go round in circles] The train all round
and r o und . . . it going all r o u n d and r 6 u n d . .. [triesto reach other imi/ i] have that
triin . . . have the blue train (‘give it to me {Faiher does 50] .. • send the blue
train down the railway line , , . \ plank falls offchair] me put the railway Line on
the ch^ir ('you put ihe railway line on the chair! jo ] . , . [iookingat
bluer rai n) Da d d y put s ^llota pe o n it ('p r e v io u s ly . . . the re a very fiercc lio n in
the train . . . Daddy go and see if the lion sliU there. . • , Have your Engine (‘give
me my engine *
Father: Whic h e ngine ? T he lit t k bla c k e ngine ?
Nigel: Ye s . , . Daddy go and find it f6r you . , . Daddy go and find the black
e ngine for you.

Nige l's linguis tic system at this stage is in a state o f tr ans ition, as he approx­
imate s more and more closely to the a dult language , a nd it is uns table at
various points . He is we II o n the way to the a dult system o f mood, but has not
quite got there - he has not quite gras pe d the principle that language can be
used as a substitute for share d e xpe rie nce , to impa r t infor mation not pre­
vious ly known to the he are r; and the re fore he has not yet le arnt the ge ne ral
me aning o f the yes/no que s tion. He has a system of pe rs on, but alte rnate s
be twe e n Hme and y o u as the e xpre s s ion of the first pe rs on i\ He has a
trans itivity system, but confus e s the role s o f age nt (actor) a nd me dium
(goal) in a non- middle (rwo- participant) process. It is wor th pointing o ut
pe rhaps that a dult lifiguis tic systems are the ms e lve s uns table at many points
- a good e xample be ing trans itivity in Englis h which is in a state o f con­
s ide rable flux; what the child is appr ox ima ting t o the r e fore , is not s ome ­
thing fixe d a nd ha r monious but s ome thing s hifting, fluid a nd full of inde-
te rminacie s .
Wh a t doe s e me rge fr om a cons ide r ation o f Nige l’s dis cours e is how,
thr ough the inte r nal or ganization o f the linguis tic system, s ituational fe a­
tures de te r mine te xt. If we de scribe the s e miotic s tructure o f the s ituation in
te rms o f fe ature s of fie ld te nor and mode , and cons ide r how these various
fe ature s relate to the systems ma king up the s e mantic ne twor ks s hown in
figure 9, we arrive a t s ome thing like the picture pre s e nte d in table 2.
T he re is thus a systematic corre s ponde nce be twe e n the s e miotic structure
o f the s ituation type and the func tiona l or ganization o f the s e mantic system.
Ea c h of the ma in areas o f me aning pote ntia l te nds co be de te r mine d or
activate d by one particular as pe ct o f the s ituation:
Semantic components Situational eUments
ideational systems activated by features of field
inte r pe r s ona l ’ te nor
te x tual ” mode
 Language as s ocial s e miotic L17

In othe r words , the type o f s ymbolic activity (fie ld) te nds to de te r mine the
range of me a ning as conte nt, language in the obs e rve r func tion (ide a tiona l);
the role r e lations hips (t e nor ) te nd to de te r mine the range o f me a ning as
participation, language in the intr ude r function (inte r pe rs onal); and the
rhe torical channe l (m o d e ) te nds to de te r mine the range o f me aning as
text ure >language in its re levance to the e nvir onme nt (te xtual). T he re are o f
course ma ny mde te r injnate ar e as - chough the re is ofte n some system eve n in
the inde te r minacy: for e xample , the c hild’s e valuation o f obje cts lies on the
borde r line of ‘fie ld’ a nd ‘te nor* a nd the system o f ‘m o dula tio n’ likewise lies
on the bor de r line o fth e ide ationa l and inte rpe rs onal compone nts o f language
(HalLiday 1969). But the re is an ove r all patte rn .T his is not jus i a coincide nce ;
pre s umably the s e mantic s yste m e volve d as s ymbolic inte raction among
pe ople in s ocial conte xts , so we s hould expect the s e miotic s tructure o f these
conte xts to be e mbodie d in its inte r nal organ ization. By taking account o f this
we get an ins ight into the for m o f r e lations hip a mong the thre e conce pts of
s ituation, text and s e mantic system. T he s e miotic fe ature s of the s ituation
activate corr e s ponding por tions o f the s e mantic system, in this way de te r min­
ing the register, the configur a tion o f pote ntial me anings tha t is typically
as sociate d with this s ituation type , a nd be come s actualize d in the text that is
e nge nde re d by it.

Table 2 Delermination of semantic features by elements ol sdmiotic structures of situation

(text in 3.2)

SrtuatoonaJ Semantic

manipubatton of objects process type and participant structure

assistance of adult benefactive
-
movable obiects and fixtur&s typd of relevant obfect
. movability of objects & their relation type of location and moveiiment
.S to fixtures
U. recall of similar events past time
JOU01

evaluation
interaction with parent
determination of course of action
e nunc ia tio n o f inte ntion
control of action
sharing of experience
S66king corroboration of e^enence
dialogue
reference to sitiialion
textual cohesion: objects
textual cohe^on: processes
furthering child's actions
orientation to Usk
spoken mcxid
modulation
mood and polarity
demamt _t want to1
demand, 1 want you to1
statefnent/question, monotogue
sta(emanVqiie8tion, dialogue
ellipsis (questiowanswer)
exophoric refer»no»
anaphoric reference
conjunction
theme (in oonjunction wfth transttivity
dtnC mood; typically, parent or cNkl
In dem ands, child In two-participant
statements, object in ooe-paitkapant
statements)
lexical collocation and repetition
information structure
Rg.9 Semantic systems and their realizations, as repmsentod in Ni^Ts speech (see section 3.2 for text)

sytmnn real i zati ons i n UHt:

be l ocated / 2 parti ci pdnts pur

be l ocated / 1 par ti ci pant be [int on)
be l ocated in m
be t o c a t n l : on on
m ov « / 2 p ar ti ci pants person send
m ov e / 2 partk : i pants obj ect csrry
m o w / 1 par ti cr pant
proc«$ei nw v e strai ght down
I troratti v rty ) m o v e: in ci rcl e round and round
pOSSAHt 2 piTtit\p9it\U
p o sses / 1 p v i i c i p an t have
«x rst / 2 p arti ci pants find
4« i st / 1 0 ar ttci pant be itherc
bof >efactf ve (l o r m e l for you
m ov abl e ty p e o f vehi cte tnin4engine.
forry
ci pant m o v ab l e: i denti f v i ng pr operty the, bfack
imrr>ovab)e chair, Hoor.
(tv p« of vehicte) f3*fw9y tine
m o v a b le capabl e wift
r d ev ao t («deoti f v>n9 p r o p er t y ) sui tabl e tor
obj ects i m m ov abl e (t y p e • H ic j e n t (9 0)
of f u r n i tu r e) past (p u t (W M )
present { pref ect ten se)
capabl e
m o d u h t io o suitable
efficient
pmsm
pMt

R g.9(i ) Ideational systoms and their realizations

$y$tems

m onol ogue
statem ent/ I statef

qo6$tion didlogue —
speech rol es
<moodf
w ant to
demand
want you to

speaker
£ person
addressee

positive
pol ari ty
ne g a tive
 realizations in t^xt:

statdment/qu^tion f f aH ing tone)

dem and (ri si ng tooeJ
m onol ogue t posi ti v e f i odi cati v e)
ask
monologue / (indicative +⼁丨not
agree
answ er
ssk t wonder (+
i ndi cati v e)
corktracf tct
answ er (cf . tex tual com ponent! yiK{ino] (+
i ndi cati v e)
I w an t to / posi ti v e (//you) W3/1C
Uubiectless
non.f i ni te, e.9 .
hsve
w ant t o / negati ve {Uyou) dor/t
want
w ant y ou to fefme Is tc ) :
(proper nam e);
{(/yov) want
(proper nam e) to
speak er h yov (sicl
addressee you (pr o p er
nam e, e.g.
^»ddy\
 reolizat iort t in t «x t

chi l d per$oo them e: child Uyou

person theme 4subject less
them e- parent nonfinite)
person them e : par ent (proper nam e
object theme
i ni ti al !
demonstrative object theme (objeci name
to situation — i ni ti al )
(^cophorid possessive e x o p h o r ic ; de m o ns tr a tiv e th^t, the,
ref erence
(obj ects) here
to tex t ex ophor i c : possessi ve yovr r o
Unaphohcl anaphori c it, that, (he
Ti adversative b u t, IfaJI-rise
cohesi on conj uncti on [
adv ersati v e
切⽹网⼁丨
< <proc«$$) e llips is : "yes/no* yes (/ )o )
{ neutral )
e l i t e s . m<wlal I m odal el em ent,
e.g. i ( is,
it wifi)
U _ f ,ycs/n°H l ex i c al : f gp& ti ti on o f { e.g.train . . .
(dia^ e)—^modaJ i tem s train)
l ex i cal col l ocati ons (6.g. ch^ir , . •
l ex i cal cohesi on 0 ) rap«t»ti on of l ex k al i tef ns ffoor train . . .
[\\\ le xical col locations raifway Um
information structure (organ i zati on
i nf orm ati on st r u c tu r e (j ) d i str i b u ti o n i ni o t ex t u n i ts
t«Kt units i n to n e groups)
續
ii} d is t r ib u t io n in t o 'g iv e fi' a n d
i nf or m ati on str uctur e :
new 1(information treated a$
(l ocati on of
gi v en—new to n i c nucl eus)
rscoverdble/ r » n .recoverdbfe)
within each um*

Fl9* 9(c) Tdxlua) systems and their realizations

 Language as s ocial s e miotic 121

3 3 S ocios e m antics o f language de v e lopm e nt

A c hild le a r ning his mothe r tongue is le a r ning how to me a n; he is build ing up
a me aning pote ntial in respect o f a limite d numbe r of social functions . These
functions cons titute the s e miotic e nvir onme nt o f a very s mall child, and may
be thought o f as unive rs als of huma n cultur e .
The me anings the child can express at this stage de rive very dire ctly from
the social functions . For e x ample one o f the functions served by the c h ild ’s
‘proto- language is the r e gulatory function, that o f co ntr olling the be haviour
o f othe r pe ople ; a nd in this func tion he is like ly Co de ve lop me anings s uch as
‘do that some mor e ’ (continue o r re pe at what y o u’ve jus t be e n d o ing ) and
‘d o n ’t do that . How does he ge t fr om these to the comple x and functionally
re mote me anings o f the a dult s e mantic s ys te m?
These language - e nge nde ring functions or ^proto- contexts1, are s imul­
tane ous ly the origin both of the s ocial conte xt a nd o f the s e mantic system.
T he child de ve lops his ability to m^a n by a gradual process o f ge ne r alization
and abs traction, which in the case o f Nige l appe are d to go s ome what along
the following lines. Ou t o f the six functions o f his proto- language (ins tr u­
me ntal, re gulatory, inte ractional, pe rs onal, he uris tic and imaginative ), he
de rive d a s imple but highly ge ne ral dis tinction tvetween language as a me ans
o f doing and language as a me ans of kn o w ing - w it h the latte r, at this stage- ,
inte r pr e ta bk func tionally as tlc a r ning,+ As he move d into the phas e o f
tr ans ition into the a dult system, at ar ound 18 months , he assigned every
utte rance to one or othe r of these ge ne ralize d functronal cate gorie s , e ncod­
ing the dis tinction by me ans of intonation: aU ‘le ar ning’ utte rance s were on a
faJling tone , and all *d o ing 1utte rance s on a ris ing tone . As forms o f inte rac­
tion, the latte r re quire d a response (incr e as ingly as time we nt on, a v e rbal
re s pons e ) while the for me r d id not.
From the mo me nt whe n this s e mantic pr inciple was adopte d, howe ve r, it
ceased to satisfy, since Nige l alre ady ne e de d a s e miotic system which would
e nable him to do both these things at once - to use language in both the
le ar ning mode and the doing mode w it hin a s ingle utte rance . Wit h o u t this
ability he could not e ngage in true dia logue ; the system cou] d not de ve lop a
dynamic for the adoption and as s ignme nt o f s e miotic role s in ve rbal inte rac­
tion. At this point >two steps were r e quir e d, or re ally one comple x step, for
e ffe ctive ly comple ting the tr ans ition to the a dult system. One was a fur the r
abs traction o f the bas ic func tiona l oppos ition, s uch tha t it came to be
incorpor ate d into his s e mantic s ys te m, as the two compone nts o f ‘ide a tiona l
and ‘inte rpe r s onal’ in the mos t genera] te rms , the for me r de ve lope d from
the ‘le ar ning’ function, the latte r fr om the *d o ing 1 function. T he othe r step
was the intr oduction o f a le xicogrammar, or syntax, ma king it pos s ible for
these two mode s o f me a ning to be expres s ed s imultane ous ly in the fo r m o f
inte grate d le x icogrammatical s tructure s .
T he le r m ‘s ocio s e mantics o f language de ve lopme nt1refers to this process,
whe re by the or iginal social functions o f the infa nt’s proto- language are
re inte rpre te d, first as ‘macro- functions * a nd the n as 'meta- functions\ func­
tional compone nts in the or ganization o f the s e mantic system. T he s e com­
122 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

pone nts , as r e marke d e arlie r (2 ,5 ), are cle arly seen in the adult language ; the
options s how a high de gre e o f mutual cons tr aint within one compone nt b ut a
very low degree of cons traint be twe e n compone nts . A t the s ame time ,
looke d at from anothe r point o f vie w, what the c hild has done is finally to
dissociate the conce pt of ‘func t io n1 fr om that o f ‘us e ’ the func tions evolve
into compone nts of the s e mantic system, a nd the uses into what we are
calling social conte xts or s ituation types. F o r a de taile d tr e atme nt o f this
topic see Ha llid a y (1975a).

4 Towards a gener al sociolinguistic theor y

In this final s e ction we s hall try to suggest how the main compone nts o f the
s ociolinguis tic unive rs e re late to one anothe r , the as s umption be ing that this
ne twor k o f re lations is the corne rs tone o f a ge ne r al s ociolinguis tic the ory.

4 .1 M e aning and text

The tex t is the linguis tic for m o f s ocial inte r action. It is a continuous pr o­
gre ss ion o f me anings , c o mbining b o t h s imultane ous ly a nd in succession. The
me anings are the selections made by the s pe ake r fr om the options that
cons titute the m e aning pote ntiate text is the actualization of this me a ning
pote ntia l, the proce ss o f s e mantic choice (cf. chapte r 7).
The selections in me aning de rive from diffe r e nt func tiona l origins , and are
mappe d o nto one anothe r in the cours e o f the ir re alization as lexico-
gr ammatical structure. In o ur fo lk linguis tic te r minology, the 4me aning* is
re pre s e nte d as ‘wording* - which in tur n is expres s ed as ‘s ound’ ( 4pro-
nouncingO or as ‘s pelling*. The folk linguis tic, incide ntally, shows o u r
awareness o f the tri- stratal natur e o f language .

4 .2 T ext an d s ituation
A text is e mbe dde d in a conte xt o f s ituatio n. T he conte xt o f s ituation o f any
text is an ins tance of a ge ne ralize d s ocial conte xt or s ituation type . T he
s ituation type is no t an i nve ntory o f ongoing sights a nd s ounds but a s e miotic
s tructure ; it is the e cological matr ix that is cons titutive o f the text.
Ce r tain type s o f s ituation have in the ir s e miotic s tructure s ome e le me nt
which maices the m ce ntr al to the processes o f cultur al trans mis s ion; these
are Be r ns te in's 'critical s ocializing contexts*. Example s are thos e having a
re gulative co mpone nt (whe re a par e nt is re gulating the c hild’s be haviour ),
o r an ins tr uctional compone nt (whe re the child is be ing e xplicitly taught).

4 3 S ituation as s e m iotic s tructure

The s e miotic s tructure o f the s ituation is for me d out o f the three s ociosemio-
tic variable s o f fie ld, te nor and mode . Thes e re pre s e nt in s ys te matic fo r m the
type o f activity in which the text has s ignificant function (fie ld), the s tatus
and role re lations hips involve d (te nor ) a nd the s ymbolic mode and r he tor ­
ical channe ls tha t are adopte d (m o d e ). T he fie ld, te aor a nd mode act
colle ctive ly as de te r minants o f the text thr ough the ir s pe cification o f the
 Language as s ocial s e miotic 123

r e gis te r (4.5 be lo w ); at the same time they are s ys te matically as s ociate d with
the linguis tic system thr ough the func tiona l compone nts o f the s e mantics
(4.4).

4 .4 S ituatio n an d s e m antic system

T he s e miotic compone nts o f the s ituation (fie ld, te nor and mode ) are
s ys te matically re late d to the functiona] compone nts o f the s e mantics (ide ­
ational. inte rpe r s onal a nd te xtual): fie ld to the id e atio nal compone nt, r e pr e ­
s e nting the ‘c onte nt func tion o f language , the s pe ake r as obs e rve r; te nor to
the inte rpe rs onal co mpone nt, re pre s e nting the (participation* func tion o f
language the s pe ake r as intr ude r ; and m ode to the te x tual compone nt,
re pre s e nting the *re levance func tion o f language w ithout which the othe r
two do not be come actualize d. T he re is a te nde ncy, in othe r words, for the
fie ld o f social action to be e ncode d linguisttcaLly in the for m o f ide ational
me anings , the role r e lations hips in the for m o f inte rpe rs onal me anings , and
the s ymbolic mode in the fo r m o f te x tual me anings .

4.5 S ituation s e m antic system and re giste r

T he s e miotic s tructure o f a give n s ituation type , its pa r ticular patte rn o f fie ld,
te nor a nd mode ca n be thought o f as r e s onating in the s e mantic system and
so activating particular ne tworks o f s e mantic options , typically options from
within the corre s ponding s e mantic compone nts (4 .4 ). This process specifies
a range o f me aning pote ntial, o r re giste r: the s e mantic configur a tion that is
typically associated with the s ituation type in que s tion.

4.6 Re giste r an d code

The s pe cification o f the register by the social conte xt is in tur n contr olle d and
modifie d by the code : the s e miotic style, or "s ociolinguis tic coding orie n­
tation' in Be r ns te in's te rm, that re pre s e nts the particular s ubcultur al angle
on the social system. T his angle o f vis ion is a function of the social s tructure .
It reflects, in o ur society the patle r ti o f s ocial hie rarchy, a nd the re s ulting
te ns ions be twe e n an e galitar ian ide ology and a hie rarchical re ality. T he code
is tr ans mitte d initially thr ough the age ncy o f family types and faintly role
systems, and s ubs e que ntly re inforce d in the various pe e r groups o f childr e n,
adole s ce nts a nd aduJts.

4 .7 Language an d the s o c ial system

T he fore going synthesis pre s uppos e s an inte r pr e tation of the social system
as a s o c iai s e m iotic: a system o f me anings tha t cons titute s the ‘r e ality o f the
cultur e . T his the higher- level system to whic h language is r e late d: the
s e mantic system o f language is a r e alization of the social s e miotic. There are
ma ny othe r for ms o f its s ymbolic r e alization be s ide s language ; but language
is unique in having its own s e mantic s tratum.
T his take s us back to the 'm e a ning pote ntia l' o f 4.1. The me aning pote n­
tial o f language , which is re alize d in the le x icogrammatical system, itself
re alize s me anings o f a highe r or de r ; not only the s e miotic o f the particular
124 A s ocios e miotic inte rpre tation o f language

social conte xt, its or ganization as fie ld te nor and mode but als o that o f the
total set o f social contexts that cons titute s the s ocial system. In this respect
language is unique a mong the mode s o f e xpre s s ion of s ocial me anings : it
ope rate s o n both levels, having me a ning both in general and in particular at
the same time . This pr ope r ty arises out o f the functional or ganization of the
s e mantic system, whe re by the me aning pote ntial as s ociate d with a par ticular
social conte xt is de rive d fr om cor r e s ponding sets o f ge ne r alize d options in
the s e mantic system.

4.8 Language an d the c hild

A c hild begins by cre ating a proto- language o f his own, a me aning pote ntial
in respect o f e ach o f the social functions that cons titute his de ve lopme ntal
s e miotic. In the course of ma tur ation a nd s ocialization he come s to take ove r
the a dult language . T he text- in- situation by which he is s ur rounde d is
filte re d thr ough his own func tiona ⼘卜 s e mantic grid so that he processes jus t
as much o f it as can be inte r pr e te d in te rms o f his own me a ning pote ntia l at the
lime .
As a strategy for e nte r ing the adult system he ge ne ralize s fr om his initial
set o f functions an oppos ition be twe e n language as do ing and language as
le arning. T his is the de ve lopme ntal origin o f the inte rpe rs onal a nd ide ­
ational compone nts in the s e mantic s yste m of ih e aduH language . T he
conce pt o f function is now abs tracte d fr om that of use, a nd has be come the
basic principle o f the linguis tic organiza tion of me aning,

4 .9 T he c h ild and the culture

As a child learns language , he als o learns through language . He inte rpre ts
text not only as be ing s pe cifically re le vant to the conte xt o f s ituation but also
as be ingge ne r ally re le vant to the conte xt o f cultur e . It is the linguis tic system
that e nable s him to do this ; since the sets o f s e mantic options which are
characte ris tic o f ihe s ituation (the register) de rive fr om ge ne ralize d func­
tional compone nts o f the s e mantic system, they 镮 Iso at the s ame time re alize
the highe r orde r me a nings th at cons titute the cultur e , and so the c hild’s focus
move s easily be twe e n micr os e miotic a nd macr os e miotic e avir onme nt.
So whe n Nige Fs mothe r s aid to him *Le ave that s tick outs ide ; s top te as ing
the cat; and go and was h your hands . It's time fo r te a , he could not only
unde r s tand the ins tructions but could als o de rive fr om the m infor ma tion
about the social system: about the boundar ie s dividing social spacc, and
'what goes whe r e '; about the continuity be twe e n the huma n a nd the anima l
wor ld; about the re gularity o f cultur al eve nts ; and more besides. He docs
not, o f course, le ar n all this, from single ins tance s but fr om the countle s s
s ocios e miotic eve nts o f this kind that make up the life o f social man. An d as a
coroilary to this, he come s to rely he avily on social system for the de coding o f
the me anings lh a t are e mbodie d in s uch day- to- day e ncounte rs .
In one sense a child's le ar ning o f this mothe r tongue is a process o f
progressively fre e ing hims e lf from the cons traints o f the imme diate conte xt
- o r , be tte r, of progressively re de fining the conte xt a nd the place ofla ngua ge
 Language as s ocial s e miotic 125

within it - so that he is able to le ar n thr ough language , and inte r pr e t an

exchange o f me anings in r e lation to the cultur e as a whole . Language is not
the only for m o f the r e alization o f s ocial me anings , but it is the only form o f it
that has this comple x prope rty: to me an, linguis tically, is at once both to
reflect a nd (o act - a nd to do bo th these things both in particular a nd in
general at the same time . So it is firs t a nd fore mos t thr ough language that the
culture is tr ans mitte d to the child, in the cours e o f e ve ryday inte raction in the
key s ocializing age ncie s o f family pe e r gr oup and s chool. T his process, like
othe r s e miotic processes, is contr olle d and r e gulate d by the code ; and so, in
the cours e of it the child hims e lf also takes over the coding or ie ntation, the
s ubcultur al s e miotic bias that is a fe ature of all s ocial s tructure s except those
of a (pos s ibly none xis te nt) homoge ne ous type , and ce r tainly o f all comple x
societies o f a pluralis tic and hie r archical kind.

4 ,JO S um m ary
Figure 4 (chapte r 3) was an a tte mpt to s ummarize the dis cus s ion in d ia ­
gr ammatic for m; the arrow is to be re ad as 'de te r m ine s ' Wh a t follows is a
re nde r ing of it in prose.
Social inte raction typically take s a linguis tic for m, which we call tex t. A
text is the pr oduct o f infinite ly many s imulta ne ous a nd successive choice s in
me a ning and is re alize d as le x icogrammatical structure^ or ‘wor ding’. The
e nvir onme nt o f the text is the conte xt o f s ituation, which is an instance o f a
social conte xt, or s ituaiw n ty pe. The s ituation type is a s e miotic cons truct
which is s tructure d in te rms o f Jie id te nor and m o de : the text- generating
activity the role re lations hips o f the par ticipants , and the rhe torical inode s
they are adopting* T he s e s ituational variable s are re late d respectively to the
id e atio nai inte rpe rs onal a nd te x tual compone nts o f the s e m antic sy stem :
me aning as conte nt (the obs e rve r func tion of Language), me a ning as par ­
ticipation (the intrude r func tion) an<J me a ning as te xture (the relevance
function). They are re late d in the sense that e ach o f the s ituational fe ature s
typically caHs forth a ne twor k a f options fr om the corre s ponding s e mantic
c ompo ne nt; in this way the s e miotic prope r tie s o f a particular s ituation type,
its s tructure in te rms o f fie ld, te nor and mode de te r mine the s e mantic
configur ation ox register - the me a ning pote ntial that is characte ris tic o f the
s ituation type in que s tion, and is re alize d as what is known as a "speech
variant . T his proce ss is r e gulate d by the code , ihe s e miotic grid or principle s
o f the or ganization o f social me a ning that re pre s e nt the par ticular sub*
cultur al angle on the social system. The s ubcultur al var iation is in its tur n a
product o f the s ocial structure^ typically the social hie rarchy acting thr ough
the dis tr ibution of family type s having diffe re nt fa milia l role systems. A
child, coming into the pictur e inte rpre ts text- in- sitnation in te rms o f his
ge ne ralize d func tiona l cate gorie s o f le arning (m athe tic) a nd d o ing (prag­
m atic) ; from here by a fur the r process o f abs tr action he cons tructs the
func tionally or ganize d s e mantic system of the a dult language . He has now
gaine d access to the social s e miotic; this is the conte x t in which he hims e lf
will Learn to me a n and in which all his s ubs e que nt me aning will take place.
126 A s ocios e miotic inte r pr e tation o f language

I have be e n atte mpting he re t o inte rre late the various compone nts o f the
s ociolinguis tic universe* with special reference to the place o f language
within it. It is for this reason tha t I have adopte d the mode o f inte r pr e tation
o f the social system as a s e miotic, a nd stressed the sys te matic aspects o f it:
the conce pt of system itself, and the conce pt of func tion within a system- lt is
alJ the more impor tant, in this conte xt, to avoid any s ugge s tion o f an
ide alize d social functionalis m, a nd to insist tha t the social system is not
s ome thing static re gular a nd ha r monious , nor are its e le me nts he ld pois e d in
some perfe ct patte rn o f functional re lations hips .
A 's ocios e miotic’ perspective implie s an inte r pr e tation o f the shifts, the
irre gularitie s , the dis harmonie s and the te ns ions that characte rize human
inte raction and social processes, lt atte mpts to e x plain the s e miotic of the
social s tructure , in its aspects both o f persistence and of change , including
the s e mantics o f s ocial class, o f the powe r system, o f hie rarchy and o f social
conflict. It atte mpts also to e x plain Ihe linguis tic processes whe re by the
me mbe rs cons truct the social s e miotic, whe re by social re ality is s hape d
cons traine d a n d modifie d - processes which, far fr om te nding towar ds an
ide al cons truction, admit a nd e ve n ins titutionalize myopia, pre judice and
mis unde r s tanding (Be rge r ami Luc kma nn 1966, ch. 3).
T he compone nts o f the s ociolinguis tic unive rs e the ms e lve s provide the
sources and conditions o f dis or de r a nd of change . These may be seen in the
text, in the s ituation, a nd in the s e mantic system, as we ll as in the dyna mic s of
cultural trans mis s ion and social le ar ning. All the lines o f de te r mination are
ipso facto also lines of te ns ion, not only thr ough inde te r minacy in the
trans mis s ion but also thr ough fe e dback. T he me a ning o f the text, for e x am­
ple, is fed back into the s itua tion, and be come s | >art o f it changing it in the
process; it is als o fed back, thr ough the register, into the s e mantic system,
which it like wis e affe cts a nd modifie s . T he code , the fo r m in which we
conce ptualize the inje ction o f the social structure into the s e mantic process,
is itself a Iwo- way r e la tion e mbodying fe e dback fr om the s e mantic c on­
figurations o f social inte raction into the role re lations hips o f the family and
othe r social groups . T he social le a r ning processes o f a child, whe the r those o f
le ar ning the language or of le ar ning the cultur e , arc among the mos t perme*
able surfaces o f the whoie system, as one soon be come s aware in lis te ning to
the language of young childr e n’s pe e r groups - a type o f s e miotic conte xt
wliich has hardly be gun to be s eriously studied* In the iight o f the role o f
language in s ocial processes, a s ociolinguis tic perspective doe s not re adily
accommodate s trong boundarie s . T he 's ociolinguis tic or de r 4 is ne ithe r an
ideal orde r nor a re ality tha t has n o orde r at all; it is a huma n arte fact having
some o f the prope r tie s o f both.
Ill
The social semantics of text
The sociosemantic nature of
discourse*

1 The semantic system

We s hall start w ith the as s umption that the s e mantic system is one of three
strata, chat cons titute the linguis tic system:
Se mantic (the me aning)
Le x icogr ammatical (the wording, i.e . syntax, mor phology a nd lexis)
Phonological (the s ound)
Se cond, we s hall as s ume that the s e mantic system cons is ts of four tunc-
tional compone nts : e x pe r ie ntial, logical, inte rpe r s onal and te xtual. T he first
two of these are closely re late d, more so tha n othe r pairs , a nd can be
combine d unde r the he a ding o f ‘ide ationa l’ (b ut see p. 131 be low):
ide a tiona l inte r pe rs onal te xtual

ex.periential Logical

T hir d, we s hall as s ume tha t e ach s tratum, and e ach compone nt, is
de scribe d as a ne twor k o f options , sets o f inte rre late d choice s having the
for m 'if a, the n e ithe r 6 o r e / Var iants of this ge ne ral fo r m include : then
e ithe r ^ ov y o r : ande itKe r m o t n ;if x , or Um , the n either/? or ^ ; if bo thy and
/I the n e it h e r r o r j or/.* T he de s cription ist the re fore , a paradigmatic one , in
which e nvir onme nts are als o de fine d paradigtnaCically: the e nvir onme nt of
any option is the set o f options that are re late d to it including those that
de fine its condition o f e ntry. T he de s cr iption is als o ope n- e nde d: there is no
point at which no furthe r s ubcate gor ization o f the options is possible.
Fourth, we s hall as sume that e ach c ompone nt of the s e mahtic system
specifies its own structures , as the ‘o utput o f Ihe options in the ne twor k (so
e ach act o f choice contr ibute s to the for mation o f the s tructure ). It is the
function o f the le xicogrammatical s tratum to ma p the s tructure s one onto
anolhe r so as to for m a single inte grate d s tructure that re pre s e nts all c o m ­
pone nts s imultane ous ly. With ne gligible e xce ptions , every ope r ational
instance o f a le xicogrammatical cons truct in the adult language —anything
that realizes text —is s tructure d as the expression o f all four compone nts . In

* The text provided fo r this in te r p r e ta tiv e exercise was ‘T h e lover a n d h is lass*, f rom FunA f r
f M es for our time^ by James Thurbcr. It is reproduced al the e nd of this chapter (p. 151),
 T he s ocios e m antic nature o f discourse 129

othe r words any instance o f language in use ‘me ans in these various ways,
and shows that it doe s so in its gr ammar .
F ifth we s hall assume tha t the le xicogrammatical system is or ganize d by
ranJc (as oppos e d to by imme diate cons titue nt s tructure ); e ach r ank is the
locus of s tructural configur ations , the place whe re s tructure s fr om the d if­
fe re nt compone nts are ma ppe d on to each othe r. The ‘r a nk scale, for the
le xicogrammar o f Englis h is:
Clause Clause
Complex

Group:

W ord W ord
Complex
M orpheme MorpihroK
Complex

Co mple x e s are univa r ia te (r e c ur s ive ) s tr uctur e s fo r m e d by paratactic o t

hypotactic combina tions - co o r dina tio n, appos ition, modific ation and the
like - at the rank in que s tion; a claus e comple x may be for me d for e x ample
by two clauses in coor dina tion. A ll othe r s tructure s are multivar iate (non-
recursive). A ‘s e nte nce ’ is de fine d as a clause comple x. See Huddle s ton
1965, Huds on 1967 Hud s o n 1971, a nd Sinclair 1972*
It follows fr om the above that each type of unit —claus e ve rbal group,
nomina l gr oup etc. - is in its e lf a s tructural compos ite , a c ombina tio n o f
s tructure s e ach o f which de rive s fr om one or othe r compone nt of the
semantics.
A claus e , for e xample ^ has a s tructure for me d out o f e le me nts s uch as
age nt process, e xte nt; this s tructure de rive s fr om the system o f trans itivity,
which is part of the e xpe rie ntial c ompone nt. Simultane ous ly it has a s truc­
ture fo r me d out o f the e le me nts moda l and pr o pos kional: this de rive s from
the system o f m o o d which is part o f the inte rpe r s onal compone nt. It als o has
a thir d s tructure compos e d o f the e le me nts the me and rheme^ de r iving fr om
the the me system, whic h is part o f the te xtual compone nt.
For e xample (s ee text at e nd o f chapte r , p. 151):

T he Gr ays | re tire d to the ir beds

e xpe rie ntial: Me d ium Process Location:

(trans itivity) L ocative

inte rpe rs onal: Mo da l Pr opos itional

(m o o d )

te xtual: T he me Rh e m e
(the me )
130 The s ocial s e mantics o f text

It is not the case that the s ame cons titue nt s tructure (s ame br acke ting)
holds thr oughout, with only the labe ls diffe ring. T his is alre ady cle ar from
this e xample : the the matic and mo da l s tructure s are s imple binary ones ,
whe re as the trans itivity s tructure is not. In any case, the re pre s e ntation jus t
give n is ove rs implifie d; the mo da l cons titue nt include s the finite e le me nt in
the ve rb, and cons is ts o f s ubje ct plus finite ness, yie lding an analys is as
follows:

claus e : T he Gr a y s 'd id r e tir e 1 lo th e ir be ds

1 Me d iu m Proce s s Lo c a t io n : Lo ca tive

Mo d a l P r o po s it io na l
2
Sub je c t F inite

3 T he me Rh- eme

The re may be diffe re nce s a t othe r points too; in ge ne r al it is characte ris tic of
le xicogrammatical s tructure s that the configur ations de r iving from the var­
ious functional compone nts o f the s e mantic system w ill diffe r not only in
the ir labe lling but in the ir br acke ting als o.
T he logical co mpone nt is dis tinct fr om the othe r three in that all logical
me anings and only logical me anings , are expres s ed thr ough the structure o f
*unit comple xe s claus e comple x , gr oup comple x and so on. For e xample :

clause T he Gr ays s toppe d ma ligning and re tire d

comple x: the hippopota mus e s to the ir be ds

logical: (claus e ) A - - - - - - - - - ⼀一 (claus e ) B

(c oor dina tion)

2 Functional components of the system

The grouping o f s e mantic compone nts diffe rs accor ding to the perspective
fr om which we look at the m.
F r om the s ta ndpoint o f the ir r e a liza tio n in the le x ic ogr a mma tic a l s ys tem
(i.e . ‘fr om be low*), the logical c ompone nt is the one that s tands out as
dis tinct from all the othe rs , since it alone is, and always is, re alize d thr ough
recursive structures.
From the s tandpoint o f the functions o f the linguis tic system in r e lation to
s ome higher- level s e miotic th a t is re alize d thr ough the ling uis tic s e miotic
(i.e . ‘fr om above it is the te xtual c ompone nt that appe ars as dis tinct, since
the te xtual c ompone nt has an e nabling func tion in respect o f the othe r
compone nts : language can e ffe ctive ly express ide a tiona l and inte rpe r s onal
me anings only be cause it can cre ate te xt. T e xt is language in ope r a tion; and
 T he s ocios e mantic nature of dis cours e 131

Ihe te xtual c ompone nt e mbodie s the s e mantic systems by me ans of which

text is cre ate d.
Fr om the point o f view o f (he or ganization within the s e mantic system
its e lf (i.e . ‘fr om the same le ve l ) the e xpe rie ntial a nd the logical go toge the r
because there is gre ate r s ystemic inte rde pe nde nce be twe e n these two than
be twe e n othe r pairs . T his shows up in var ious places thr oughout the Englis h
s e mantic system (the ge ne ral patte rn may we ll be the s ame in all language s ,
though the specifics are diffe r e ni): for e x ample , the s e maniics o f time
reference, o f s pe aking (*X s a id— a nd o f ide ntifying (*A = B!) all involve
some inte r play o f e xpe rie ntial a nd logical systems. T o illus trate this from the
s e mantics o f s pe aking, proce ss ‘s ay’ is an o p t io n in the trans itivity system,
which is exp>erae ntial; whe re as the re/fl/fo/j be twe e n the proce s s of s aying and
what h s aid - the ‘r e por ting’ re lation —is an option in the logical system of
inter- clause re lations .
T he picture is the re fore s ome thing ⼁丨 ike the following:

Fimdlonal components of semantic system, sten from dtffer«iit vantage points:

- - - - - - i- ■_ ■
■- - - - , ■- m- i■
- - - - ■■
• ii- - - -- im- - - - ■- - 11- - - - - - - - -

s e m io t ic - fu n c t io n a l (*fr o m a b o v e 1) -.
i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
(e x tr in s ic ) (e n a b lin g )
i--------------------- 1 I t ex t u a l
id e a t io n a l in t e r p e r s o na l

s e m a ntic ('fr o m t h e ir o w n )e v e r ):

ideational interpersonal textual

logic al e x p e r ie ntia l

le x ic o g r a m m a t ic a l ( ‘fr o m b e lo V ) :

( imi v aTiate) ( mu Itiv ari ate)

Logical i * ^
c x pr ie nr ia t in te r p e r s o na l te x tua l

T able 3 {p. 132) sets o ut the principal s e mantic systems ar range d by

function and rank, s howing the ir functional location in the s e mantic system
and the ir point o f or igin in the le x icogrammar.
[ n cons ide ring the natur e o f text, we have to take note o f the fact that
ce r tain s e mantic systems are re alize d thr ough the me dium o f phonological
systems which have no counte r par t in the wr itte n language . One o f these is
the infor mation system.
T he infor mation system, which derives fr om the te xtual compone nt,
de te r mine s how the te xt is or ganize d as a flow o f messages. It doe s not
ope rate thr ough a u n it on the le x icogrammatical r ank scaie but specifies a
dis tinct cons titue nt s tructure o f its own, which we re fe r to as ^information
s tructure ’. The infor ma tio n s tructure is re alize d thr ough the intonat ion
Tabto 3 Fuficlional components of the 拥 mantic system

IDEATIONAL TEXTUAL
INTERPERSONAL
LOGICAL ex pe r i e n t i a l (COHESION)

STRUCTURAL MOMSTRUCTURAL
A.

i (f ) Ctws* 镠
M
由脚 clause da咖 retoranoe
% expansion IransrtMty, modulalion mood» modality theme
potarity ^ubMrtulk>rV«lb09is
|
S oon^undion
£ projection verbaJ group verbal group: verbal group:
Iyp0» ot pf O«u t m d parson polarity i voice: coolrast
l«xlc«l COMion:
S (paratactic rtrttritton
I
1 coHoeatioa
nominal group: nomirval group: nontinal group;
1 * types ol partidpant person { 'roie') ; cMxie
镟 hypotactic) class, ^uflN(yFo y镞

I
I
adv««t)iai group adverbial group: atfvMA^oroup
羞 prapoetttona) group: prtposrtiona) oraup:
preposiiional group:
lypM of circumstance comment cof^jtction
J
(?) tnformabon stwctvn

inlormailon unit: informaHon unit:

— tnformttiofi MrDution
and bem
 T he s ocios e maniic nature of discourse 133

system o f ihe phonology; a nd ihe s tructural unit the ‘infor mation unit1, is
re alize d as a phonological cons titue nt (i.e. a unit on the phonological rank
scale)* the one which is ge ne rally known as the tone g r o u p ,o r tone unit. This
is the carrie r o f one comple te tone c o n t o u r See Ha llid a y 1967b, Elme no ufy
1969, Ha llida y 1970.
Since it is re alize d thr ough intona tio n, which is not s hown in the writing
system the infor mation s tructure is a fe ature of the s poke n language only;
and any inte r pr e tation o f the infor ma tio n s tructure o f a wr itte n text de pe nds
on the ‘implication o f utte rance , whic h is a fe ature o f writte n language .
T he re are two aspects to this: (i) the inte r pr e tation o f the paragcaphological
signals lh a t the wr itte n language e mploys , such as punc tuation, unde r lining
and othe r forms o f e mphas is ; (ii) the as s umption o f the *good re as on
principle , name ly tha t the ma pping o f the infor mation structure o ntn othe r
s tructures wilJ take the unma r ke d for m except whe re the re is good reason
for it to do othe rwis e (or , to put the s ame thing in anothe r way the
as s umption tha t it will take the form that is lo c ally unmar ke d).
T his doe s no t me an tha t we are le ft w ith only one possible r e ading o f a
text, because in any re al text there will be both ambiguitie s and conflicts in
the 4co- text\ the re le vant te x tual e nvir onme nt at any point. Diffe r e nt fe a­
tures may be counte d as re le vant; some fe ature s will allow more than one
inte r pr e tation; and s ome fe ature s will r un counte r to othe rs in the pressures
they exert. But there will always be a vast numbe r o f the or e tically possible
re adings that are rule d o a t by the co- text, so tha t the numbe r o f sensible
inte rpre tations is re as onably s mall.

3 The natur e of text

W ithin this func tiona l frame wor k, there is one s e mantic compone nt that we
have labe lle d 1textual*; this compone nt e mbodie s the s pe cifically text-
for ming resources o f the linguis tic system. One par t o f these resources
consists o f the the me and info r ma tio n systems (Ha llid a y 1968; 1976, ch.
12); these are s tructural, m the sense tha t options in these systems contr ibute
to the de r ivation o f s tructure ; the matic options contr ibute to the lextco-
grammatical s tructure >be ing re alize d thr ough the claus e a nd infor mation
systems contr ibute to what wb have calle d the infor mation s tructure , a
dis tinct though re late d hie rarchy that is re alize d dire ctly in the phonologicai
system thr ough the tone gr oup. T he cohe s ive r e lations are nons tr uc tur a l
not be ing re alize d thr ough any form o f s tructural configur ation (Ha llida y
and Has an 1976).
AH these are aspects o f the s e mantic system. T he y are options in me aning,
which like othe r options in me aning are re alize d thr ough the or ganization at
othe r s trata.
In orde r to give a comple te char acte r ization o f te xture , we s hould have to
make re fe re nce also to ‘ge ne r ic’ s tructure , the for m that a text has as a
prope rty o f its ge nre . The fact that tKe text unde r dis cus s ion is a narrative ,
and of a par ticular kind, as made e xplicit in the ge ne r al title Fable s fo r our
134 T he social s e mantics o f text

tim e - that is, it is a comple x o f a tr aditional narrative for m, the fa ble ’ and a
late r form, the humor ous essay, to which this has be e n adapte d - de fine s for
it a ce rtain generic structure , which de te r mine s s uch things as its le ngth, the
type s of par ticipant (typically animals give n huma n attribute s , o r at least
huma n roles, a nd e ngaging in dia logue ), and the culmina tio n in a moraJ.
T he generic s tructure is outs ide the linguis tic s ys te m; it is language as the
proje ction of a higheT- Icvel s e miotic structure . It is no t s imply a fe ature of
literary genres; there is a ge ne ric s tructure in all discourse , including the
mos t infor mal s pontane ous conve rs ation (Sacks e r a/. 1974). The conce pt o f
generic s tructure ca n be br ought within the ge ne ral fr ame wor k of the
conce pt o f register, the s e mantic patte rning that is characte ris tically associ­
ate d with the ‘conte x t of s itua tio n' o f a te xt; see the s e ctions o n text and
s ituation (pp. 141- 50) be low, a nd als o Gr e gor y 1 9 6 7 ,Has an 1973, T he s truc­
ture o f narrative ge nre , e s pe cially tr aditional for ms o f narrative , has be e n
extensively s tudie d across a wide range o f diffe re nt language s , a nd we shall
not atte mpt to discus s it he re ; see for e xample T abe r 1966, Chabr ol and
Ma r in 1971.
These three factors - generic s tructure , te x tual s tructure (the matic and
informational)^ and cohe s ion - are what dis tinguis h te xt fr om ‘non- te xt .
One does not nor ma lly me e t *non- text1 in real life* though one ca n cons truct
it for illus trative purposes- He r e is a passage in which only the the matic
structure has be e n s cramble d; e ve rything else, inc luding all othe r aspects o f
the te xture , is we ll- forme d:
Now comes the President here. It ’s (be window he's stepping through to wave to
the crowd. On his victory his opponent congratulates him. What they are
shaking now is hands. A speech is going to be made by him. ‘Gentlemen and
ladies. That you are confident ir me honours me. I shall, hereby pledge I, turn
this country into a place in which what people do safely will be live and the ones
who grow up happily will be a bk to be their children.'
T he matic patte rns are not o ptio na l stylistic var iants ; the y are an inte gral part
o f the me aning o f language . Te xture is not s ome thing that is achie ve d by
s upe rimpos ing an appr opr iate text for m on a pre e xis ting ide ationa l conte nt.
T he te xtual compone nt is a c o mpo ne nt o f me a ning a long with the ide ationa l
and inte rpe r s onal compone nts . He nee a linguis tic de s cr iption is n o t a p r o ­
gressive s pe cification o f a set of structure s one afte r the othe r , ide a tiona l
the n inte rpe rs onal, the n te xtual. The s yste m doe s not first ge ne rate a re p­
re s e ntation o f re ality, the n e ncode it as a s peech act, a nd finally re code it as a
text* as some wr iting in philos ophical linguis tics seems to imply. It e mbodie s
all these types o f me aning in s imultane ous ne twor ks o f options , fr om e ach o f
which de rive s tructure s that are ma ppe d onto one anothe r in the course of
the ir Je xicogrammatical re alization. T he le x icogr ammar acts as the in teg*
rative system, taking configur ations fr om all the compone nts o i the s eman*
tics a nd co mbining the m to form multilaye r e d, *polyphonic* s tructural c o m ­
pos itions .
 T he s ocios e mantic nature of dis cours e 135

4 The text as a semantic unit

The quality o f te xture is not de fine d by size. The re is a conce pt of a text as a
kind o f super- sentence, some thing that is large r than a sentence but o f the
same nature . Bu t this is to mis re pre s e nt the e s s e ntial quality o f a text.
Obvious ly one c a nno t quar r e l w ith the use of the te rm *text to re fe r to a
s tring o f s e nte nce s that re alize a te xt; but it is impor ta nt to stress that the
sentences are , in fact, the re aliz ation o f text rathe r than cons tituting the text
itself. T e xt is a s e mantic conce pt.
T he same pr o ble m has aris en in linguis tics w ith the conce ption of the
sentence as a s upe r- phone me . A s e nte nce is not an outs ize phonological
unit; it is a le x icogrammatical unit that is re alize d in the phonological system,
which has its own hie rarchy o f units . It may be that the sentence in some
language o r othe r is ma r ke d o ff by the phonological system, so (hat U can be
ide ntifie d at the phonological le ve l; but that doe s not make the se nte nce a
phonological conce pt. T he re is de ve lopme nta l e vide nce that a c hild builds
up his phonology fr om both ends, as it were, cons tructing a phonological
system on the one ha nd a nd individual phonologic al re pre s e ntations o f
le xicogrammatical e le me nts on the othe r — bo th par ticular word-
phonologie s and ge ne r alize d sy Jlabl e - phono Jogies at the s ame time (F e r ­
gus on and Farwe ll 1973). In othe r w o id s a s yste m is built up both as a tactic
system in its own right a nd as the pie ce me al r e a lization o f e le me nts o f a
higher- level system. We find an analogous process taking place at the next
level up. The child both cons tructs a Le xicogrammatical system and, simul*
tane ous ly, le xicogrammatical re pre s e ntations of s e mantic e le me nts . Jus t as
he de ve lops a word phonology side by side w ith a s yllable phonology, he also
de ve lops a text grammar side by side with a claus e grammar . T he 'text
grammar* in this sense is the r e alization, in the le xicogrammar, of particular
e le me nts o n the s e mantic s tr atum; a nd it e x plains the impor ta nt par t playe d
in language de ve lopme nt by the le a r ning o f large stretches o f ‘w or ding’ as
uninte rr upte d whole s.
A te xt as we are inte r pr e ting it is a s e mantic unit, which is not compos e d
o f sentences b ut is r e alize d in sentences. A text is to the s e mantic system
what a clause is to the le x icogr ammatical system a nd a s yllable to the
phonological system. It ma y be characte r ize d by ce rtain le xicogrammatk:al
features, jus t as a clause may be characte r ize d by ce rtain phonological
features ; but this doe s not make it a le x icogr ammatical unit (give n that such
a unit is to be de fine d, as we have de fine d it, by its be ing the locus of
le xicogrammatical s tructures ).
Whe the r or not, and in what sense, the re is a r a nk scale, or hie rarchy, of
s e mantic units , some linguis ts have suggested mus t be le ft unde cide d. A
clause is only one o f a numbe r o f str uctu re - carrying units in the g r a mma n
and it is not e ntire ly cle ar why it s hould be s ingle d out as the primary
gr ammatical cons titue nt; the s ame applie s to the s yllable , o r any unit that is
selected as the basic unit for phonology. T he conce pt o f s e mantic units is
much less de a r c ut s ince the conce pt of s e mantic structure is less cle arcut.
136 The social s e mantics of text

In any case the linguis tic system as a whole is not s ymme trical, as La m b
pointe d o ut in his re vie w o f Hje lms le v 1961 (La m b 1966). Mor e ove r the
dis tinguis hing fe ature of the s e mantic system is its organiza tion into func ­
tiona l compone nts . These de te r mine , not units o f diffe r e nt sizes, but simul*
tane ous configur ations o f me anings o f diffe re nt kinds . T he s e mantic an­
alogue o f the r ank scale wouJd appe ar to be not some kind o f a hie rarchy o f
strucrural units but the multiple de te r mination o f the text as a unit in respect
o f more than one pr ope r ty, o i ‘dime ns ion o f me aning,
Le r me express this more concre te ly in r e lation to the text that is unde r
cons ide ration. T his cons titute s 'a text as de fine d by the te xtual compone nt:
not only has it a generic s tructure , b ut it is also inte r nally cohe s ive , a nd it
functions as a whole as the re le vant e nvir onme nt for the ope r ation of the
the me and infor mation systems, [ n othe r words it has a unity o f what we hav«
calle d ‘te xture ’ de riving from the s pe cifically text- forming compone nt
■within the s e mantic system, and this is s ufficie nt to de fine it as a text. But we
are like ly to find this unity re fle cte d als o in its ide ational and inte rpe rs onal
me anings , so that its qua lity as a te xt is re inforce d by a continuity o f conte xt
and o f s pe ake r 'audie nce re Jations hip. In fact this ‘ariis tic unity 1 is alre ady
containe d in the conce pt o f ge ne ric s tructure , and re fle cte d in the specific
for ms take n by the cohe s ive relations- So the re is a continuity in the time
reference (e ve ry finite verb in the narrative is in s imple past tense, every one
in the dialogue is in s imple pre s e nt); in the trans itivity patte rns (the process
types are those of pe r ce ption, cognition, ve r balization, a nd attr ibution,
except for the ve ry last s e nte nce ; a nd the re is a rathe r eve n dis tr ibution
a mong the m); in the attitudina l mode s , the for m o f the dialogue , a nd so
on.
In othe r words , a text is a s e mantic unit de fine d by the te xtual compone nt.
T his is not a tautology; r athe r it is the re as on for calling the te xtual c o m ­
pone nt by that name . A text has a ge ne ric structure , is internaUy cohesive,
and cons titute s the re le vant e nvir onme nt for s e le ction in the ‘te xtual’ sys­
tems of the gr ammar . But its unity as a te xt ts like ly lo be dis playe d in
patte rns o f ide ationai and inte rpe rs onal me a ning as well. A text is the
product of its e nvir onme nt, and it functions in tha t e nvir onme nt. In the ne xt
section I s hall e xplore br ie fly the way in which we can conce ptualize the
re lation o f text to its e nvir onme nt, a nd the processes whe re by specific
aspects of a spe ake r's or wr ite r’s s e mantic system te nd to be activate d by -
and hence, in tur n’ to s hape a nd modify - specific aspects o f the e nvir onme nt
in >vhich me anings are e xchange d.
Me a nwhile , we s hould stress the essential inde te r minacy o f the conce pt o f
‘a text'. Claus e s , or syllables, are re lative ly we ll- de fine d e ntitie s : we us ually
know how many of the m there are> in any ins tance , and we can eve n specify,
in te rms o f s ome the or y whe re the y be gin a nd e nd. A text, in the nor mal
course o f events^ is not s ome thing tha t has a be ginning a nd a n e nding. T he
exchange o f me anings is a continuous process that is involve d in all human
inte raction; it is not uns tructure d* but it is seamless, a nd all that one can
observe is a kind o f pe r iodicity in which pe aks o f te xture alte rnate with
 T he s ocios e mantic nature of dis cours e 137

troughs - highly cohesive mome nts w ith mome nts o f re lative ly little c on­
tinuity. T he discrete nes s o f a literary text is untypical o f texts as a whole .
By ‘te xt’ the n, we unde r s tand a continuous proce ss o f s e mantic choice-
Te xt is me a ning and me a ning is choice , an o ngoing cur r e nt o f s e te ctions cach
in its par adigmatic e nvir onme nt o f what m ight hav e be e n me ant (but was
not). It is the paradigmatic e nvir onme nt - the innume r a ble subsystems that
make up the s e mantic system - t h a t mus t provide the bas is o f the de s cription,
if the text is to be re late d to highe r orde rs o f me aning, whe the r s ocjat
literary o r of some othe r s e miotic unive rs e . T he re as on why de s criptions
bas e d on s tructure are o f lim ite d value in text studie s is that in such the orie s
the paradigmatic e nvir onme nt is s ubor dinate d to a s yntagmattc frame o f
re fe re nce ; whe n paradigmatic conce pts are intr oduce d, s uch as trans ­
for mation, the y are e mbe dde d in what r e mains es s e ntially a s yntagmatic
theory. By what at first s ight appe ars as a paradox , since text is a s yntagmatic
process (but see Hje lms ie v 196 L, s e ction 11), it is the par a digmatic basis o f a
de s cription tha t make s it s ignificant fo r text s tudie s . He nce in gLoss^matics,
and s imilarly in the 4systemic' ve rs ion o f system- struciure the ory, the syn-
tagmatic conce pt of structure is e mbe dde d in a the or y that is essentially
par adigmatic. He r e the de s cr iption is ba&ed o n s ystem; a nd text is inte r ­
pre te d as the proce ss of continuous move me nt thr ough the s yste m a process
which b o th expresses the highe r orde rs o f me aning that cons titute the "social
s e miotic the me a ning systems o f the cultur e , a nd at the same time changes
and modifie s the system itself.

5 The text as pr oj ection of meanings at a higher level

Wh a t is ‘above* the te xt? If text is s e mantic process, e ncode d in the le xico­
grammatical system what doe s U e ncode in its tur n?
Wha t is 'above ' de pe nds on o ne ’s pe rspe ctive , o n the nature of the inquiry
and the ide ology o f the inquir e r . T he re are diffe r e nt higher- level semiotics,
and ofte n diffe r e nt levels o f me aning within each.
T his point e me rge s very cle arly if one cons ide rs lite rary texts. T o say tha t a
text has me aning as lite r atur e is to re late it s pe cifically to a lite rary universe
o f discourse as dis tinct fr om othe r s , and thus to inte r pr e t it in te rms of
lite rary norms and as s umptions about the natur e o f m e aning. T he linguis tic
de s cr iption o f a te xt which is conte x tualize d in this way atte mpts to e xplain
its me aning as lite rature - why the r e ade r inte rpre ts it as he doe s a nd why he
e valuate s it as he doe s . T his involve s re lating the te xt to a higher- level
s e miotic system which is face te d a nd laye red in much the s ame way as the
linguis tic system itself. A n e xample o f this ‘laye r ing fr om the pre s e nt te xt is
the use o f the ge ne ric for m o f the fable as the ve hicle of a humor o us essay,
alre ady re fe rre d to above . T he 'le ve l o f lite rary e x e cution' is part o f che total
re alizational chain (Ha s a n 1971).
Wh e n there is for e gr ounding of le xicogrammatLcal or phonologic al fe a­
tures in a lite rary te xt, particular forms o f linguis tic pr omine nce that relate
dire ctly to s ome face t of its lite rary inte r pr e tation, this is clos e ly analogous to
138 T he social s e mantics of text

the ‘bypas s ing’ phe nome non that is fo und within the linguis tic system whe n
some e le me nt in the se mantics is re alize d dire ctly in phonological te rms {cf.
p. 133 above ). At this point the re is is omorphis m be twe e n tw o adjace nt
s trata, and the phe nome non can be re pre s e nte d as a s traight pass thr ough
one o f the stratal systems. An e xam pie fr om the s e mantics o f Englis h is ihe
bandwidth o f a failing tone expressing the de gre e o f ‘ne wne s s ’ or s e mantic
contras t invoJved in a s tate me nt. It is possible in s uch a case to set up a
gr ammatical system as an inte rface be lwe e n ihe s e mantics ajid the pho no l­
ogy; and there are s trong re as ons for do ing so, since there is a s ystematic
inte r r e lations hip be twe e n this and othe r gr a mmatica l systems, although
strictly in its own te rms the gr a mmatica l r e pre s e ntation is r e dunda nt
because there is ne ithe r ne utr aliza tion nor dive rs ification at this point.
T he point is a s ignificant one be cause a gre at de al o f stylistic for e ­
gr ounding de pe nds on an analogous process, by which s ome aspect o f the
unde r lying me aning is re pre s e nte d linguis tically at more tha n one level: not
only thr ough the s e mantics o f the te xt - the ide ational a nd inte rpe rs onal
me anings , as e mbodie d in the conte nt a n d in the wr ite r ’s choice o f his role -
but als o by direct re fle ction in the le x icogrammar or the phonology. For an
e xample o f this from a s tudy o f Willia m Go ld ing 's nove l T he Inhe ritors see
Ha llida y 1971, whe re it is sugge sted that the par ticular impact o f this nove l
on re ade r and critic may be e x plaine d by the fact that the unde r lying
s e miotic is proje cte d s imultane ous ly both onto the s e mantics , in the conte nt
o f narrative and dialogue and o nto the gr ammar , in the highly untypical
trans itivity patte rns that characte rize , no t so much individual clauses (none
o f which is in itse lf de viant), but the dis tr ibution o f claus e type s in the writing
as a whole .
T he le xt unde r discussion does not dis play this fe ature o f multile ve l
for e gr ounding to any gre at e xte nt be caus e it is bo th s hort and prose. A verse
Text, howe ve r s hort, provide s scope by virtue of its ge ne ric fo r m for (he sort
o f patte r ne d var iability o f patte rns which is involve d in this kind o f multiple
pr oje ction whereas in a prose text it is like ly to appe ar only in rathe r
long- range effects* as de fle ctions m the typical patte rns o f cooccurre nce and
re lative fre que ncy. B u t there are mino r instances: for e xample the
phonae s the tic mo tif o f the final s yllable in s naffle , bum ble , w uffle and
g urble , a nd incongr uity involve d in the use o f s ynonyms o f diffe re nt ‘te nor ’
(see p. 144 belo^v) s uch as nw te lov e r, inam oratus .
T o s ummarize this point: a te xt, as we ll as be ing re alize d in the lowe r levels
o f the linguis tic system, le xicogr ammalical and phonologic a l, is als o its e lf
the r e alization o f higher- level s e miotic s tructure s with the ir own mode s o f
inte r pr e tation, lite rary, s ociological, ps ychoanalytic and so on. These
higher- leveJ s tructure s may be expres s ed not only by the s e mantics o f the
text but also by patte r ning at these lowe r levels ; whe n s uch lowe r- kve l
patte r ning is s ignificant at s ome highe r level it be come s what is known as
‘for e gr ounde d . Such for e gr ounde d patte rns in le x ic ogr a mma i or p h o n o l­
ogy may be characte ris tic o f a part or the whole o f a text or e ve n o f a whole
class o r genre o f texts, a classic e x ample be ing the rhyme s che me s o f the
 T he s ocios e mantic nature of discourse 139

Pe trar chan and Shake s pe are an s onne ts as e xpre s s ion of two very diffe re nt
mode s o f artistic s e miotic (patte r ns o f me aning used as art forms ).

6 The text as a sociosemiotic process

In its mos t ge ne ral s ignificance a text is a s ociological e ve nt, a s e miotic
e ncounte r thr ough which the me anings that cons titute the social system are
e x change d. T he individua l me mbe r is, by virtue o f his me mbe rs hip, a
‘me ane r , one who means* By his acts o f me aning, and those o f othe r
individual me ane rs , the s ocial re ality is cr e ate d ma inta ine d in good orde r,
and continuous ly s hape d a n d modifie d.
It is pe rhaps not too farfe tche d lo put it in these te rms : re ality cons is ts of
me anings , and the fact that me anings are es s e ntially inde ie r minate and
unbounde d is w ha i gives rise to tha t s trand in huma n thought - philos ophi­
cal, re ligious s cie ntific —in which the e mphas is is on the dynamic, wave like
aspect o f reality* its cons tant re s tructuring, its pe riodicity wichout recur-
re nee, its continuity in time and space. He r e there is no dis tinction be twe e n
reJations a mo ng s ymbols a n d r e lations a mong the ‘things* that they s ym­
bolize - be cause bo th are o f the s ame or de r ; both the things a nd the s ymbols
are me anings . T he fact that aspects of re ality can be digitalize d and re duce d
to or de r e d ope r ations on s ymbols is still cons is te nt with the vie w o f re ality as
me aning: ce rtain as pects o f me a ning are als o captur e d in this way. Pike
(1 959) expressed this prope rty o f the linguis tic system (chough one may
que s tion the de tails o f his applic ation o f these conce pts ) by vie wing language
as particle wave and fie ld; cach o f these perspective s re veals a diffe r e nt kind
o f tr uth about it.
Linguis tic the ory has r e ma ine d at a stage at which paniculate ne s s is
tre ate d as the nor m, a nd a numbe r o f diffe r e nt a n d not very cle arly related
concepts are invoke d to handle its non- particulate aspects. As far as text
studies, and te xt me aning, is conce r ne d, howe ve r, we ca nnot relegate the
indcie r minacy to an appe ndix . T he text is a continuous process. There is a
cons tantly s hifting r e lation be twe e n a text and its e nvir onme nt, both pa r a ­
digmatic and s yntagmatic: the s yntagmatic e nvir onme nt, the 1conte xt of
s itua tion1 (which include s the s e mantic conte xt - and which for this reason
we inte rpre t as a s e miotic cons truct), can be tre ate d as a cons tant for the texc
as a whole , but is in fact cons tantly changing, e ach par t serving in tur n as
e nvir onme nt fo r the n e x t An d the ongoing text- creating process continually
modifie s the system that e nge nde rs it which is the paradigmatic e nvi­
r onme nt o f the text. He nce the dynamic, inde te r minate nature o f me aning,
which can be ide alize d o ut to the mar gins if one is cons ide ring only the
system, or only the text, e me rge s as the domina nt mode o f thought as soon as
one conie s to cons ide r the two toge the r, and to focus on text as actualize d
me aning pote ntial.
T he e s s e ntial fe ature o f text, therefore* is that it is inte raction. The
exchange of me anings is an inte ractive process, and lext is the me ans of
exchange ; in orde r for the me anings which cons titute the s ocial system to
!4Q T he social s e mantics of text

be e xchange d be twe e n me mbe r s they mus t first be re pre s e nte d in some

e xchange able symboJic form, and the mos t accessible o ft h e available forms
is language . So the me anings are e ncode d in (a nd thr ough) the s e mantic
system, and give n the for m o f text. An d so text functions as it were as
potlatch: it is pe r haps ihe mos t highly code d form o f the g ift T he conte s ts in
me aning that ar a fe ature of so many huma n groups - culture s and sub-
c uliur e s - ar e fr om this po int o f view conte s ts in giving, in a re- encoded form
in which the gift, i tself an e le me nt in t he social s e miotic ( a ‘me aning ) but one
that in the typical or at _ea5t the classic ins tance is re alize d as a thing is
re alize d ins te ad as a special kind o f abs tract s ymbol, as me anings in the
specifically linguis tic sense. Such a gift has the prope rty that, howe ve r gre at
its s ymbolic value (a nd howe ve r much it may e nr ich the r e cipie nt), i( doe s
not in the slightest de gre e impove ris h the giver.
We can see this aspect of text, its role as a gift mos t cle arly in the
phe nome non o f s e mantic conte s t; in compe titive story- telling, exchange o f
ins ults , ‘capping* anothe r ’s joke s and othe r forms o f ve rbal e xploit. Or a l
verse for ms such as baNads lyrics, and e pigr ammatic a nd allusive couple ts
figure in many culture s as mode s o f compe ting, and e ve n wr itte n com-
pos ition may be pr e domina ntly a compe titive act: late Eliza be tha n sonne ts
provide an outs tanding e xample . In all such ins tance s the aim is to excel in
me aning, in the act o f giving and the value o ft h e gift* But it is not too fanciful
to see the e le me nt o ft h e gift as one compone nt in all lite r atur e , a nd in this
way 10 show how the act o f me aning, and the pr oduc t o f this actt name ly text,
come s to have value in the culture*
T he reason for making this point here ne e ds to clarifie d. It is natur al to
conceive o f text first and fore mos t as conve rs ation; as the s pontane ous
inte rchange o f me anings in ordinary, everyday inte raction. It is in s uch
contexts that re ality is cons tructe d in the micros e miotic e ncounte rs o f daily
life . The reason why this is so* why the cultur e is tr ans mitte d to, or re cre ate d
by’ the individual in the first ins tance thr ough conve rs ation rathe r than
thr ough othe r acts o f me aning, is that conve rs ation typically re late s to the
e nvir onme nt in a way tha t is pe rce ptible and concre te , whe re as othe r genres
te nd to de pe nd on inte rme diate levels o f s ymbolic inte rpr e tation. A lite rary
text such as the one unde r dis cus s ion cre ate s its own imme diate conte xt o f
s ituation, and the re lating o f it to its e nvir onme nt in the social system is a
comple x and te chnical ope r a tion. Conve r s ation, while it is no less highly
s tructure d, is s tructure d in such a way as to make e x plicit its re lations hip to
its s e tting; though it is no less comple x in its layers o f me aning, the var ious
s e miotic strategies and motifs that make it up are (by no me ans always , but in
s ignificantly many ins tance s, and typically in the case of contexts that are
critical in the s ocialization o f a child: see Be r ns te in 1971) de rivable from
fe ature s o f the social e nvironme nt. He nce to unde r s tand the nature o f text as
social action we are le d naturally to cons ide r s pontane ous conve rs ation, as
be ing the mos t accessible to inte rpr e tation; and to draw a rathe r cle ar line
be twe e n this and othe r, less imme diate ly con text ualizable acts o f me aning
such as a poe m o r ptos e narr ative . It is pe r haps us eful in text s tudie s ,
 T he s ocios e mantic nature o f dis cours e 141

the re fore , to br ing o u t thos e aspects o f the s e miotic act that are c ommon to
alh and that e ncompas s what is tr a ditional as we ll as what is s pontane ous ,
and re late to literary as we ll as 10 conve rs ational texts. T he very ge ne ral
conce pt o f a text as an e xchange o f me anings cove rs both its status as gift and
its role in the r e a lization a nd cons truction o f the social s e miotic,

7 The situation as a deter minant of lext

We have take n as o ur s tarting point the obs e r vation that me anings are
cre ate d by the social syste m and ar e e xchange d by the me mbe r s in the for m
o f text. T he me anings so cre ate d are not, o f cours e , isolates; they are
inte grate d systems of me aning pote ntia l. It is in this sense tha t we can say
that the me anings are the s ociai system: the s ocial system is its e lf inte r ‘
pre table as a s e miotic system.
Persistence a nd change in the social system are both re fle cte d in text and
br ought about by me ans o f text* Text is the primary channe l o f the trans ­
mis s ion of c ult ur e ; a nd it is this aspect ⼀一text as the sc mantic process o f social
dynamics - that more than anything eJse has s hape d the s e mantic system.
Language has e volve d as the pr imar y mode o f me a ning in a social e n v i­
ronm e nt. It provide s the me a ns of acting on a nd re fle cting on the e nvi,
r onme nt, to be sure - b u t in a br oade r conte xt, in which acting and re fle cting
on the e nvir onme nt are in tur n the me ans o f cre ating the e nvir onme nt and
tr ans mitting it fr om one ge ne r ation to the ne xt. T ha t this is s o is because the
e nvir onme nt is a social construct* If things e nte r into it, the y do so as be arers
o f social values.
Le t us follow this line o f re as oning thr ough. T he linguis tic system has
e voive d in social contexts, as (one for m o f) the e xpre s s ion of (he social
s e miotic. We see this cle arly in the or ganization of the s e mantic system,
whe re the ide ational c ompone nt has e volve d as the mode o f re fle ction on the
e nvir onme nt a nd the inte r pe r s onal c o mpo ne nt as the mode o f action on the
e n v ir o nm e nt T he system is a me a ning pote ntial, which isJactualize d in the
form o f te xt; a te x t is a n ins tance of s ocial me a ning in a par ticular conte xt o f
s ituation. We s hall the re fore expect to find the s ituation e mbodie d or
e ns hrine d in the text, not pie ce me al but in a way which re fle cts the sys*
te matic re lation be twe e n the s e mantic s tructure a nd the social e nvir onme nt.
In othe r words , the ‘s ituation will appe a r as e nvis age d by Hyme s (1971a),
as cons titutive o f the te xt; pr ovide d, tha t is we can characte rize it so as to
take account o f the e cological prope r tie s o f language , the fe ature s which
re late it lo its e nvir onme nt in the social sys(em.
A text is* as I have stressed, an inde te r minate conce pt. It may be very long,
or very s hort; a nd it may have no very cle ar boundar ie s . Many things about
language can be le ar nt only fr o m the s tudy of very lo ng texts. But there is
much to be fo und out als o fr om little texts; not only texts in the conve ntional
for ms of lyric poe try, prove rbs and the like but als o br ie f trans actions ,
cas ual encounters* a nd all kinds o f ve rbal micro- opeTations. An d among
these the re is a s pe cial value to the linguis t in c hildr e n’s texts, since these
142 T he social s e mantics of text

te nd to dis play the ir e nvir onme mal links more dire ctly and with less
me taphor ical me diation. A de s cription o f a s hort piece o f child language*
s howing its r e lations hip to the conte xt of s ituation which e nge nde re d it, was
given in chapte r 6. We find all the time in the s peech o f yo ung childre n
e xample s of the way in which the y the ms e lve s e xpe ct text to be re late d to its
e nvironme nt; the ir own step- by- step buiJding up o f layers o f me taphor ical
me aning affords, a cle ar and impre s sive illus tr ation o f this point.
T he que s tion to be re solved is, how do we ge t fr om the s ituation to the
text? Wha t features o f the e nvir onme nt in any specific ins tance , calle d for
these particular options in the linguis tics system? It may be obje cte d that this
is as king the old que s tion, why did he say (o r write ) what he did? a nd that is
s ome thing we can never know. Le t me make it cle ar, the re fore , tha t I am not
as king any que s tions that re quire to be ans we re d in te rms of individual
psychology. I am as king: what is the pote ntial of the system chat is like ly to
be at risk, the s e mantic configur ations tha t are typically associated with a
specific s ituation type ? T his can always be expres s ed in pe rs onal te rms , if it
seems pre fe rable to do so; but in that case the que s tion will be: what
me anings will the hearer* or re ade r, expect to be offe re d in this particular
class o f social conte xts ? T he me anings that cons titute any give n text do not
present the ms e lve s to the Kearer out o f the blue ; he has a very good ide a of
what is coming. The final topic that wi]J be discus s ed here is that o f text and
s ituation. In what sense can the conce pt o f "situation* be inte rpr e te d in a
s ignificant way as the e nvir onme nt o f the text?

8 Semiotic structur e of I he situation: field, tenor and mode

It was suggested in the first section that the options that make up the
s e mantic system are es s e ntially o f three or four kinds —four if we separate
the e xpe rie ntial from the logical, as the gr ammar ve ry cle arly does .
We s hall be able to s how s ome thing of how the te xt is re late d to the
s ituation if we can specify what aspects of the conte xt o f s ituation 'r ule ' e ach
of these kinds o f s e mantic option. In othe r words , for e ach c ompone nt o f
me aning, what are the s ituational factors by which k is activate d?
T he que s tion the n be come s one of characte r izing the conte xt o f s ituation
in appropr iate te rms , in te rms which will reveal the systematic re lations hip
be twe e n language a nd the e nvir onme nt. T his involve s some fo r m o f the or e t­
ical cons truction that re late s the s ituation s imultane ous ly to the te xt, to the
linguis tic system, and to the s ocial system. For this purpos e we inte rpre t the
s ituation as a se miotic s tructure; it is an instance o f the me anings that make
up the social system. Ac tually it is a class of instances, since what we
characte rize will be a s ituation ty pe rathe r than a particular s ituation c on­
s idered as unique .
T he s ituation consists of:

(i) ihe s ocial ac tio n : that which is ‘going o n a nd has re cognizable me a ning
in the social system; typically a comple x o f acts in s ome or de r e d con*
 T he s ocios e mantic natur e of dis cours e 143

figur ation, and in which the text is playing s ome part, and including
^s ubje ct- maue r' as one s pe cial aspect;
(ii) the role s tructure : the clus te r o f socially me aningfuJ p a r t id p a n t r e la­
tions hips , both pe r ma ne nl attribute s o f che par ticipants a nd role r e la­
tions hips that are specific to the s ituation, including the speech roles, those
that come into be ing through the e xchange o f ve rbal me anings ;
(iii) the s y m bolic o rg an iz atio n : the pa r ticular s tatus tha t is assigned to t\ ie
text w it hin the s ituation; its func tion in re lation to the social action and the
role structure,, including the channe l o r me dium, and the rhe torical mode .
We re fe r to these by the te rms *field\ "tenor* a nd ‘m o d e ' T he e nvi­
r onme nt, or s ocial conte xt, of language is s tructure d as a fie ld of s ignificant
social action, a te nor o f role re lations hips , a nd a m ode o f s ymbolic or gan­
ization. T ake n toge the r these cons titute the s ituation, or ^context of situa-
t io n ’ of a text.
We can the n go on to e s tablis h a ge ne ral principle gove r ning the way in
which these e nvir onme ntal fe ature s are proje cte d o nto Ihe text.
Ea c h o f Ihe compone nts o f the s ituation te nds to de te r mine the selection
o f options in a corre s ponding c ompone nt o f the s emantics. In the typical
ins tance , the fie ld de te r mine s the s e le ction o f e xpe rie ntial me anings , the
te nor de te r mine s the s e le ction o f inte rpe rs onal me anings , and the mode
de te r mine s the s e le ctioa o f te xtual me anings .

fie ld (type of social action) e xpe rie ntial

te nor (role re lations hips ) inte rpe rs onal
mode (s ymbolic or ganization) te xtual

8 ! Fie ld
T he s e le ction o f options in e xpe rie ntial s ys te ms - that is, in trans itivity, in the
classes of things (obje cts , persons, events e tc.), in quality, qua ntity , time ,
place and so on —te nds to be de te r mine d by the nature o f the activity: what
socially re cognize d action the par ticipants are e ngage d in, in which the
exchange o f ve rbal me anings has a part. T his include s e ve rything from, at
one e nd, types o f action de fine d without re fe re nce to language , in which
language has an e ntire ly s ubordinate roJe, various forms o f collabor ative
work and play such a& uns kille d ma nip ula tio n o f obje cts or s imple physical
game s ; thr ough inte r me diate types in which language has s ome necessary
but still ancillary function, ope r ations r e quir ing s ome ve rbal ins tr uction and
re port, game s with compone nts o f s coring, bid d ing planning, a nd the like ;
to type s o f inte raction de fine d solely in linguis tic terms, like gos sip, s e mi­
nars, re ligious discourse and mos t of what is r e cognizcd unde r the he ading o f
lite rature . At the latte r e nd o f the c o ntinuum the conce pt of *subject- matterf
inte rve ne s what we unde r s tand as s ubje ct- matte r can be inte rpr e te d as one
e le me nt in the s tructure o f the ‘fie ld’ in thos e conte xts whe re the social
144 T he sociai s e mantics of te xi

action is inhe r e ntly o f a s ymbolic ve rbal natur e . In a game o f football, the

socia] action is the game itself, a nd any ins tructions or othe r ve rbal inte rac­
tion among ihe players are part o f this s ocial action. In a discussion about a
game o f football, the social ac lion is the dis cus s ion and the ve rbal inte raction
among the participants is the w hole o f this s ocial action. He re the game
cons titute s a second orde r o f ‘fie ld one that is br ought into be ing by that of
the first orde r, the dis cus s ion, owing to its special nature as a type of social
action that is its e lf de fine d by language . / / is to this second- order fie ld o f
discourse that we giv e the nam e o f 'subject- matter*.

8.2 T enor
The s election o f inte rpe rs onal options thos e in the systems o f mood, m o d ­
ality. pe rs on, key, inte ns ity, e valuation and comme nt and the like , tencU to
be de te r mine d by the role re lations hips in the s ituation. Ag a in there is a
dis tinction to be dr awn be twe e n a firs t and a s e cond orde r o f such role
re lations hips . Social role s o f the first or de r are de fine d without refe rence to
language though the y may be (a nd typically are ) re alize d thr ough language
as one for m o f role - proje cting be haviour ; al] social role s in the us ual sense of
Ihe te rm are o f this orde r. Se cond- orde r social roles are those which are
de fine d by the linguis tic system: these are the role s that come into be ing only
in and thr ough language , the discourse rotes of que s tione r , informe r,
re s ponde r, double r , contradicte r a nd the like . (Ot h e r types o f s ymtwlic
action, war ning, thr e ate ning, gre e ting a nd so on, which ma y be re alize d
e ithe r ve rbally or nonve r bally, or both, de fine roles which are s ome way
inte rme diate be twe e n the two.) These dis cours e role s de te r mine the selec­
tion of options in the mo o d system. T he re are systematic patte rns of re la­
tions hip be twe e n the first- order and the second- order roles. An inte re s ting
e xample o f this e me rge d fr om recent studies o f clas s room dis cours e , which
showe d lha t in the te ache r- pupil r e lations hip the role o f te ache r is typically
combine d with that o f que s tione r a nd the role o f pupil with that o f re s pon­
de nt, and not the othe r way r ound (cf- Five to N ine (1 9 7 2 ); Sinclair et al.
1972) - de s pite our conce pt o f e ducation, it is not Ihe le arne r who asks the
que s tions .

8.3 M ode
The s e le ction o f options in the te xtual systems, s uch as thos e o f the me ,
infor mation a nd voice , and also the s e le ction of cohe s ive patte rns , those of
re fe re nce s ubs tittition and e llips is a nd co njunc tion, te nd to be de te r mine d
by the s ymbolic forms take n by the inte raction, in particular the p] ac^ tha t is
assigned to the text in the total s ituation. T his include s the dis tinction of
me dium, wr itte n or s poke n, a nd the comple x s ubvarie tie s de rive d from
these (writte n to be r e ad a lo ud and so o n ); we have alr e ady note d ways in
which the or ganization o f te xt- forming resources is de pe nde nt on the
me dium o f the text. But it e xtends to much more than this, to the particular
s e miotic func tion or range of functions that the text is se rving in the e nvi­
ronme nt in que s tion. The rhe torical conce pts o f e xpos itory, didactic pe r­
 T he s ocios e mantic nature o f dis cours e 145

s uasive, de s criptive a nd the like are e x ample s o f s uch s e miotic functions . All
the cate gorie s unde r this thir d he ading are se cond- orde r cate gorie s , in that
they are de fine d by refe rence to language and de pe nd fo r the ir existence on
the pr ior phe nome non of text. It is in this sense tha t the te xtual c ompone nt in
the s e mantic system was s aid to have an ‘e na b ling ’ func tion vis- 4- vis the
othe r two: Lt is only thr ough the e nc oding o f s e miotic in t e r a c t io n s text that
the ide ational a nd inte rpe r s onal co mpone nts o f me aning can be come o pe r ­
ational in an e nvir onine nt.
T he conce pt o f ge nre discus s ed above is an as pe ci o f what we are calling
the ‘mode . The various ge nre s o f dis cours e , including literary genres, are
the specific se miotic functions o f te xt tha t have social value in the cultur e . A
genre may have implications for othe r compone nts o f me aning: there are
ofte n as s ociations be twe e n a pa r ticular genre and particular s e mantic fe a­
tures o f an ide ational o r inte rpe r s onal kind, for e x ample be twe e n Che genre
o f praye r a nd ce r tain s e le ctions in the mo o d system. He nce labe ls for ge ne ric
cate gorie s are ofte n func tionally comple x : a conce pt such as ‘b a lla d’ implie s
not only a ce r tain text structure with typical patte rns o f cohe s ion b u t als o a
ce rtain range o f conte nt expres s ed thr ough highly favour e d options in
trans itivity and othe r e x pe r ie ntial s ys te ms - the type s o f process a nd classes
o f pe rs on and s ubje ct that are e xpe cte d to figure in as s ociation with the
s ituational role o f a ballad text* T he *fable* is a cate gory o f a s imilar kind.
T he patte rns o f de te r mina tion that we find be twe e n the conte x t of s itu­
ation and the text are a ge ne ral characte ris tic o f the whole comple x that is
for me d by a text a nd its e nvir onme nt. We s hall no t e xpe ct to be able to show
that the options e mbodie d in one or a nothe r particular sentence are de te r ­
mine d by the fie ld, te nor or mode of the s ituation. The principle is tha t e ach
o f these e le me nts in the s e miotic s tructure o f the s ituation activates the
corr e s ponding compone nt in the s e mantic system, cr e ating in the proce ss a
s e mantic configur ation, a gr ouping o f favoure d a nd for e gr ounde d options
from the total me aning pote ntia l, that is typically as s ociate d with the s itu­
ation type in que s tion. T his s e mantic configur a tion is what we unde r s tand by
the 're gis te r': it de fine s the varie ty ('diatypic variety* in the sense of Gr e gor y
1967) o f which the pa ttic uia r text is an ins tance . T he conce pt o f re gis te r is
the necessary me dia ting conce pt tha t e nable s us to es tablis h the continuity
be twe e n a text and its s ocios e miotic e nvir onme nt,

9 The situation of the Thur ber text

T he 's ituation' o f a wr itte n te xt te nds to be comple x ; and tha t o f a fictiona l
narrative is about as comple x as it is pos s ible for it to be . T he comple xity is
not an automatic feature of language in the wr itte n me dium: some wr itte n
texts have re lative ly s imple e nvir onme nts , which do not involve layers o f
inte r pr e tation. A n e xample is a war ning notice such as Bew are o f the dog.
T he comple xity o f the e nvir onme nt o f a writte n te xt arises r athe r from the
s e miotic functions w it h which wr iting is typically as sociate d. In the case o f
fictional narr ative , this is no t e ve n necessarily as sociate d with writing: it is a
146 T he social s e mantics o f text

fe ature jus t as much of oral na r r a dve tr aditional or s pontane ous (in the ir
diffe r e nt ways).
In a fictional text, the fie ld o f discourse is on two levels: the social act of
nar r ation, and the social acts tha t fo r m the conte nt o f the nar r ation. For our
pre s e nt text the de s cription o f the fie ld w ould be in s ome thing like these
te rms :
1 (a ) Ve r ba l art: e nte r ta inme nt thr ough story- tclHng
(b ) (i) T he me : huma n pr e judice ( ‘the y’re diffe re nt, s o hate the m!').
Pr oje cte d through:
(ii) Thesis (*pIol*): fictitious inte raction o f animals : male /fe male
pairs of hippopotamus e s ^ parrots .
T he te nor is als o o n two levels, since two dis tinct sets of r ole re lations hips
are e mbodie d in the te xt: one be twe e n the na r r ator a nd his re ade rs hip,
which is e mbodie d in the narrative a n d one a mong the participants in the
narrative , which is e mbodie d in the dialogue ;
2 (a ) Wr ite r and re aders ; write r a dopting role as re counte r : s pe cifically
as humoris t (partly pr oje cte d thr ough s ubs idiary r ole as moralis t),
and as s igning comple me ntar y role to audie nce ,
(b) Mate and mate : animal pair as pr oje ction o f hus band and wife ; e ach
adopting own (comple me ntar y) role as r e inforce r o f s hare d
attitude s .
Since unde r e ach o f the he adings o f "field* and ‘te nor 1 the text has
appe ar e d as a comple x o f two dis tinct levels, we mig ht be te mpte d to
conclude that a fictional narrative o f this kind was re alty two s e parate 'te xts '
wove n toge the r. As a pure ly abs tract mo de l this co uld be ma de to s tand; but
it is re ally mis le ading, not only be caus e it fails to account for the inte gration
o f the te xt - a nd in any sensible inte r pr e tation this is one text and not two -
but als o be cause the r e lation be twe e n the two levels is quite diffe r e nt in
respect o f the te nor from what it is in respect o f the field- As re gards the
te nor, the text does faLJ into two dis tinct s e gments , the narrative and ihe
dialogue ; each is characte rize d by its own set o f role r e lations hips , a nd the
two combine to for m a whole . As re gards the fie ld howe ve r, there is no
divis ion in the te xt corr e s ponding to the two levels o f social action: the whole
text is at one and the same time an act o f malic ious gossip and an act of ve rbal
art, the one be ing the re alization o f the othe r . We could not, in othe r words ,
be gin by s e parating o u t the Iwo levels and the n go o n to de s cribe the fie ld
and the te nor o f e ach; we have to de scribe the fie ld o f the text, and the n the
te nor o f the te xt, and both in diffe r e nt ways the n re veal its two- level se miotic
organization.
T he one ne s s of the text also appe ars in the characte r ization o f the mode ,
the s ymbolic s tructure o f the s ituation and the specific role assigned to the
text within it:
3 Text as ‘self- sufficient a& only for m o f s ocial action by which S it u ­
a tion1 is de fine d.
 T he sociose mantjc nature of dis cours e 147

Wr itte n me dium: to be re ad s ile ntly as private act.

Light essay; original (ne wly- cre ate d) te xt proje cte d onto tr a ditional
fable ge nre , s tructure d as narrative - with- dialogue , with ‘m o r a l’ as cul-
minative e le me nt.
Eve n a ge ne ral s ke tch s uch as this suggests s ome thing o f the comple xity o f
the conce pt o f ‘s ituation’ a pplie d to a wr itte n narrative . T he comple xity
increases if we s e e k to make e x plicit the s e miotic ove rtone s that are typically
as sociate d with the inte r pr e tation o f a lite rary te xt; in particular , as in this
ins tance , the many&ided r e lations hip be twe e n the plot and the the me or
the me s unde r lying it ‘ If the 'conte xt o f s ituation* is seen as the essential link
be twe e n the s ocial system (the 'conte xt o f culture\ to use anothe r o f
Ma linows ki's te rms ) and the te xt, the n it is more than an abs tract re p­
r e s e ntation of the re le vant mate r ial e nvir onme nt; it is a cons te llation o f
social me anings , a nd in the case o f a lite rary text these ar e like ly to involve
many orde rs o f cultur al value s, b o th the value systems the ms e lve s and the
many specific s ubs ystems tha t exist as me taphor s for the m. A t the same
time one o f the effects o f a s ocios e miotic appr oac h is to suggest that a ll
language is lite rature , in this sense; it is only whe n wc re alize that the same
things are true o f the s pontane ous ve rbal inte raction o f ordinar y e ve ryday
life {and nothing de mons trate s this more d e a r ly than the Late Harve y Sacks '
br illiant exegesis o f conve r s ational texts, which was in the best tr aditions o f
lite rary inte r pr e tation) that we be ^in to unde r s tand how Language functions
in society - and how this , in tur n has moulde d and de te r mine d the linguis tic
system.
If the re fore the re ar e limits on the e xte nt to which we ca n de mons tr ate in
the present ins tance , that the text has its e ffe ctive origin in the conte xt o f
s ituation, this is only partly because of its pe culiarly difficult s tanding as a
comple x genre o f lite rary fiction; many othe r type s o f linguis tic inte raction
are not e s s e ntially diffe r e nt in this re spe ct. T he re are more favourable
instances; we have alre ady re fe rre d in this conne ction to c h ild r e n ^ la n­
guage , where the re is not so much s hifting o f focus be twe e n diffe re nt orde rs
o f meaning- Not tha t the s pe e ch o f childr e n is free o f s e miotic strategies —far
from it; but the resources thr ough which the ir strategies are e ffe cte d te nd to
be less comple x, less varie d and less ambiguous - childr e n cannot yet me an
so many things at once . The present text, which is a good e xample o f adult
multivale nce , is for that ve ry reason less easy to de rive from the conte xt o f
s ituation, w ithout a muc h more de taile d inte rpr e tative apparatus . But ce r­
tain fe ature s do e me rge which illus tr ate the link be twe e n the s e mantic
configur ations o f the text and the s ituational de s cr iption that we have given
o f the fie ld, te nor and mode . Thes e are set out in the following s e ction.

10 SUuational inter pr etation of the text

1 Story- te lling —tense: every finite ve rb in narrative por tions is in s imple
p^s t tense.
148 T he social s e mantics o f te xt

T he me /the s is - (i) trans itivity: pr e domina ntly (a) me ntal process: pe r­

ce ption, e.g. lis te n; cognition e.g. be iie y e ; re action, e.g. s urpris e ys ho c k ;
(b ) ve rbal process, intr o duc ing quote d s peech. An im a l par ticipant as
me dium o f proce ss (cognizant, s pe ake r ); note that the re is a grammatical
rule in Englis h that the cognizant in a m e m a ⼘卜 process claus e is always
‘h u m a n i.e, a thing e ndowe d with the attribute o f huma nity.
T he me /the s is - (ii) vocabular y as conte nt (de notative me anings ), e.g.
inam oraius as expre s s ion of *mate\
2 Wr ite r as r e counte r - mood: every claus e in narrative portions is declara*
tive (nar rative s tate me nt).
Wr ite r as humor is t - vocabular y as attitude (connotative me anings ), e.g.
inam oratus as expre s s ion o f mock stylishness.
Wr ite r as m o r a lis t- m o o d : speciaJ mo o d s tructure for pr ove r bial wis dom,
laugh and the w orld iaughs . . *
‘Hus ba nd a nd wife ’ as players in game of pr e judice - r e infor ce me nt- mood
and m o dula tio n: claus e s in dialogue portions s witch rapidly a mong dif­
fe re nt moods and modulations , e .g, the se que nce de clarative , modula te d
inte rr ogative , ne gative de clarative , moodle s s de clarative (s tate me nt,
e xclamatory que s tion, ne gative re s pons e , e x clamation, s tate me nt),
3 Self- sufficiency of text - cohe s ion: reference e ntire ly e ndophor ic (within
text itself). Note reference o f he r to Las s in title , s ugge s ting highly
organize d text.
Wr itte n me dium - infor mat ion: no infor ma tio n s tructure , e xce pt as
implie d by punc tuation, b u t ’alte r native ’ devices characte ris tic o f writte n
language viz‘ (i) highe r lexical de ns ity pe r unit grammar , (ii) Jess c o m ­
plexity, and more paralleLism, o f gr ammatical s tructure , (iii) the matic
var iation (ma r ke d and nominalize d the me s ), which suggests particular
infor ma tion s tructure be caus e o f as s ociation be twe e n the two systems,
"typically o f the form ([ the me ] [ give n r he me ) (ne w)] , i.e . the me within
given, ne w within rhe me .
Ge nr e : narrative with dialogue - Qu o t in g s tructure s : the matic form of
quote d followe d by quoting, w it h the latte r {said ⼗十Subje ct) compris ing
infor mational *tail e .g. 'He calls he r s nook y - ook um s , * s aid M rs G ray
expresses 'dialogue in conte x t of or iginal fictional narr ative ’’

Whe n the te\ t is locate d in Us e nvir onme nt, in such a way as to s how what
aspects o f the e nvir onme nt are proje cte d o nto what fe ature s o f the te xt, a
patte rn e me rge s o f s ys te matic r e lations hip be twe e n the two. The Linguistic
fe aiure s that were de rive d from the ‘fie ld were all fe ature s assigned to the
ide ational compone nt in the s e mantic system. T hos e de riving fr om the
tenor’ are all assigned to (he inte rpe rs onal compone nt; a nd thos e de riving
fr om the fcmode\ to the te xtual compone nt.
T he logical compone nt e nte rs into the pictur e in a dual pe rs pe ctive which I
shall not atte mpt to discus s in de tail he re . T he me a nings (hat make up this
compone nt are ge ne ralize d ide ationa l r e lations s uch as c oor dina tion
 T he s ocios e mantic nature o f dis cours e 149

appos ition, re porte d s pe e ch, modific a tion a nd s ubmodific ation; as such the y
form a par t o f the ide ationa l compone nt. But once in be ing, as it were, the y
may als o serve to re late e le me nts o f the othe r compone nts ^ inte rpe rs onal
a nd te xtual. T o take a s imple s t e xample , the me a ning ‘a n d ’ is its e lf an
ide ational one , but the ‘a n d ’ r e lation can as we ll serve to link inte rpe r s onal
as id e a t io n a l me anings : hell and damnation! as we ll snakes and ladders.
Compar e , in the pre s e nt text, the ‘and- ing o f allite r ative (te xtual) fe ature s
in dis dain an d de ris io n, m ock ing and m ons trous .

It s hould pe rhaps be stressed in this c onne c tion that the inte r pr e ta tion o f
the s e mantic system in te rms o f these c ompone nts o f ide ationa l (cxpe rie n-
tiah logical), inte rpe r s onal and te x tual is pr ior to and inde pe nde nt of any
cons ide ration o f fie td te nor and mode . Such an inte r pr e tation is impos e d by
the for m o f inte rnaJ or g a niza tion o f the linguis tic system. He nce we can
re as onably s pe ak o f the de te r mina tion o f tlie text by the s ituation, in the
sense that the various s e mantic systems are seen to be activate d by par ticular
e nvir onme ntal factors that s tand in a ge ne ralize d functional r e lations hip to
the m.
T his picture e me rge s from a de s cr iption o f the prope rtie s of the text,
e s pecially one in te rms o f the re lative fre que ncy o f options in the diffe re nt
systems. Much o f the me a ning o f a te xt resides in the s ort of for e gr ounding
that is achie ve d by this kind o f e nvir onme ntally motiva te d pr omine nce in
which ce rtain sets o f options are favoure d (s e le cte d with gre ate r fre que ncy
than e xpe cte d o n the as s umption o f unconditione d pr oba bility), as a re aliz­
ation o f particular e le me nts in the s ocial conte xt. T he ins pe ction of these sets
o f options one by one , e ach in its s ituational e nvir onme nt, is o t cours e an
analytical pr oce dur e ; the ir s e le ction by the s pe ake r, a nd appr e he ns ion by
the he are r, is a proce ss of dy nam ic s imu Ltane ity, in which at any mome nt that
we s top the tape , as it were, a whole lo t of me a ning selections are going o n at
once all o f which the n be come part o f the e nvir onme nt in which fur the r
choice s are made . If we lift out any one piece o f the text, s uch as a single
sentence, we will find the e nvir onme nt re fle cte d not in the individua l options
(s ince these be come s ignificant only thr ough the ir re lative fre que ncy of
occurre nce in the te xt), b ut in the particular c o mbina tio n o f options that
characte rize s this sentence take n as a whole , AS a n e x ample , cons ide r the
sentence:
*1 would as soon live with a pair of unoiled garden shears,* said her inamoratus.
T his sentence combine s the r e lational process o f accompa nime nt, in liv e
w ith ; the class o f obje ct, urtoile d garde n s he ars , as circums tantial e le me nt;
a nd the comparative mo dula tio n w ould as s oon (a ll of whic h are ide ational
me anings ) as r e alization o ft h e m o t if o f huma n pr e judice (fie ld, as in 1 (b) (i)
above ). It combine s de clarative mood, first pe rs on (s pe ake r) as s ubje ct, and
the a tt itudinal me a ning o f w ould as s o o n y e xpre s s ing pe rs onal pre fe re nce
(the s e be ing inte rpe r s onal me anings ) as r e alization of the mar rie d c ouple d
s haring o f attitude s (te nor ). Not very muc h can be said, naturally, about the
150 T he social s e mantics o f text

specific te xt- forming e le me nts within a single s e nte nce ; but it happe ns that
in its the matic s tructure which is the claus e - inte rnal aspect of texture, this
sentence doe s co mbine a numbe r o f fe ature s that re late it to the ‘m o de ’ it
has the particular quoting patte rn re fe rre d to above as characte ris tic o f
dialogue in narrative , toge the r with> in the quote d claus e , the first person
the me in active voice that is one of the mar ks of infor mal conve rs ation. In
fact it displays in a par a digm fo r m the cre s ce ndo o f •communicative dy na m­
is m' de s cribe d by Firbas (19 64 ; 1968) as typical o f s poke n Englis h,
We s hall not find the e ntir e conte xt of s ituation o f a text ne atly laid out
be fore us by a s ingle s entence . It is only by cons ide ring the text as a whole
that we can see how it s prings fr om its e nvir onme nt and is de te r mine d by the
specific fe ature s of that e nvir onme nt. And until we have s ome the ore tical
mode l o f this r e lations hip we s hall no t re ally unde r s tand the processes by
which me anings are e xchange d. T his is the s ignificance o f atte mpts towards a
's ituational" inte r pr e tation o f text. Ve r ba l inte raction is a highly code d for m
of social b c x , in which the inte ractants are continuous ly s upplying the infor ­
mation that is 'mis s ing1fr om the te xt; see o n this point Cic o ur e l 1969. T hey
are all the time unrave lling the c o d e - a n d it is the s ituation that serves the m
as a ‘k e y ' T he pre dictions lha t the he are r o r re ade r make s fr om his know ­
ledge of the e nvir onme nt allow him to re trie ve infor ma tio n that would
otherwise be inacce ss ible to him. T o e xplain these pre dictions re quire s some
general account o f the s ys te matic r e lations a mo ng the s ituation, the lin­
guistic system and the text.
T he text is the unit o f the s e mantic process. It is the text, a nd noc the
sentence; which dis plays patte rns o f r e lations hip with the s ituation. These
patte rns , the characte ris tic s e mantic tre nds a nd configur ations that place the
text in its e nvir onme nt, cons titute the 're gis te r1; e ach text can thus be tre ate d
as an instance o f a class o f texts th a t is de fine d by the re gis te r in que s tion.
The fie ld, te nor a nd mode o f the s ituation colle ctive ly de te r mine the register
and in this way func tion as cons titutive of the text.
Wh a t is re ve ale d in a single s e nte nce , or othe r unit o f Icxicograminatical
s tructure is its origin in the functional or ganization of the s e mantic system.
Each of the s e mantic compone nts , ide ational (e xpe r ie ntial a n d logical) in­
te rpe rs onal and te x tual has contr ibute d to its make up. A pie ce of wor ding -
s entence , claus e phras e o r gr oup —is the pr o duc t o f nume r ous micro- acts
of s e mantic choice . T he s e mantic system has its o w n fur the r conte xt in the
total s ocios e miotic cycle, the series of ne twor ks tha t e xte nd from the social
system {the culture as a s e miotic cons truct), thr ough the linguis tic system on
the one hand and the social conte xt on the othe r , down to the wording and
the s ounds and writte n s ymbols , which are the ultimate linguis tic m a n ­
ifestations of the text.
 T he s ocios e mantic nature of dis cours e 151

The lover and his lass

An ar rogant gray parr ot and his ar rogant mate lis te ne d, one Afr ic a n afte r ­
noon, in dis dain and de ris ion, to the love ma king o f a love r a nd his lass who
happe ne d to be hippopotamus e s .
*He calls her s nooky- ookums ,Tsaid Mrs Gr a y . ‘Ca n you be lie ve that ?
‘N o s aid Gr ay. ‘I d o n ’t see how any male in his right mind could e nte rtain
affe ction for a fe male that has no more char m than a caps ize d b a t h t u b /
'Caps ize d bathtub, inde e d!1e x claime d Mrs Gr ay. *Both o f the m have the
appe al o f a coastwise fr uit s te ame r with a cargo of wate rlogge d bas ke tballs . ’
Bu t it was s pring, and the love r a nd his lass were young, and they were
oblivious o f the s cornful comme nts o f the ir s harp- tongue d ne ighbors , and
they continue d to b u m p e ach othe r ar ound in the wate r , happily pus hing and
pulling, backing and filling, and s nor ting a nd s naffling. T he te nde r things
they s aid to e ach othe r dur ing the mo no lithic give- and- take o f the ir cour t­
s hip s ounde d as lyric lo the m as flowe rs in bu d or green things ope ning. To
the Gr ays , howe ve r, the b um b ling r o mp o f the love r and his lass was hard to
compre he nd a nd e ve n harde r to tole rate , a nd for a time the y thought o f
calling the A.B.L, or Afr ican Bur e au o f Inve s tigation, on the ground that
monolithic love ma king by e nor mous cre ature s who s hould have be come
de ce nt fossils long ago was pr obably a thr e at to the se curity o f the jungle .
But they de cide d ins te ad to phone the ir frie nds atid ne ighbor s a n d gossip
about the shameless pair, and de s cribe the m in mo c king and mons trous
me taphor s involving s kidding bus e s on icy streets and ove r tur ne d moving
vans.
Late the e ve ning, the hippo pota mus and the hippopota ma were surprise d
and s hocke d to he ar the Gr ays e x changing te rms o f e nde ar me nt.
"Listen to thos e s quawks ’ wuffle d the male hippopotamus .
4Wha t in the world ca n the y see in e ach other?* gur ble d the fe male
hippopotamus .
‘I w ould as s oon live with a pair o f unoile d garde n s he ars / s aid her
inamoratus .
T he y calle d up the ir frie nds and ne ighbor s a nd discussed the incre dible
fact that a male gray parr ot and a fe male gray parr ot could poss ibly have any
sex appe al. It was Long afte r midnight be fore the hippopotamus e s s toppe d
criticizing the Gr ays a n d fe ll as le e p a nd the Gr a y s s toppe d malign mg the
hippopotamus e s and re tire d to the ir be ds .

m o r a l: L augh and the world laughs with you, love and you love atone,

(Jame s T hurber* Furthe r fable s fo r o u r tim e (Lo n d o n 1956), 36- 9)

IT
Language and social
structure
Language in urban society

A city is a place o f talk. It is built a nd he ld toge the r by language . Not only do

its inhabitants s pe nd much of ihe ir e ne rgie s co mmunic a ting with one
anothe r ; in the ir conve rs ation they are all the time reasserting and re s haping
the basic conce pts by which urban society is de fine d. If one listens to city
talk, one hears cons tant re fe re nce lo the ins titutions , the times a nd places,
the patte rns o f move me nt and the types o f s ocial r e lations hip that are
characte ris tic o f city life.
We might describe this by us ing the fa miliar te rm *speech c o m m unity ’
(Gum p e r z 1968). A city is a speech community. But this is a very ge ne ral
label that might be applie d to almos t any aggre gate o f pe ople . We would
have to say what it means* a nd what pa r ticular me aning is be ing as cribed to it
as a de s cription o f ur ba n society.
T he 's pe e ch c o mmunity ’ is an ide alize d cons truct, a nd it is one which
combine s thre e dis tinct conce pts ; thos e of s ocial gr oup, c ommunic a tio n
ne twork, a nd linguis tically homoge ne ous population. Each o f these three
e mbodie s some ide a o f a nor m. A speech c ommunity, in this ide alize d sense,
is a gr oup o f pe ople who (1 ) are linke d by s ome fo r m o f social or ganization,
(2) talk to e ach othe r , and (3) all s pe ak alike .
Diale ctologis ts have always re cognize d that this is an ide alize d con-
struction> to which actual huma n groups only appr ox imate . If we t h in k o f the
inhabitants of an old- e stablis he d Eur ope a n village , they pr obably did for m
some sort o f a co mmunic a tion ne twork: in Little by, o r KEeinstadt o r Malgo-
r od, strange rs were rare. But the y har dly forme d a single s ocial unit, othe r
than as de fine d by the fact o f the ir living in the village ; a nd they ce r tainly did
not all s peak alike , par ticular ly if one took the landlor d and the prie s t into
account.
Nevertheles s , as a mode l for linguis tics in a rural conte xt the "speech
c ommunity’ notion works re as onably we ll. ‘T he diale ct o f Little by ' can be
take n, and by cons e nt is take n, to re fe r t o the mos t highly diffe r e ntiate d for m
o f Little by s peech, that which is mos t cle arly set apar t fr om the s pe e ch of the
ne ighbour ing villages . Nowadays this varie ty is us ually to be fo und s poke n
onJy t>y the olde s t inhabitant. Rur a l diale ctology le ans r athe r he avily on the
oldest inha bita nt and always has done ; partly no do ubt be cause the re was
some hope that he might tur n o u t to be the linguis t's ide al of a naive
infor mant, but als o be caus e he was more like ly to s pe ak ‘pure Littleby\
T he re is an appar e nt contr adiction here. In the his tory o f language s , as we
are accus tome d to conce ptualize it, the nor mal picture is one o f dive rge nce :
 La nguage in urban society 155

diale cts grow furthe r apart as time goes by. Bu t by the time diale cts be gan to
be sys te matically s tudie d, this tre nd towards linguis tic dive rge nce had be e n
re place d in these rural communitie s by a tre nd towards conve rge nce . The
younge r speakers no longe r foe used o n the village , a nd so in the ir speech
they were alre ady moving away fr om t he more highly diffe r e ntiate d forms of
the village diale ct.
It was not until the 1960s that serious inte rest came to be dire cte d towards
the speech o f the cities. T he mode r n de ve lopme nt of urban diale ctology is
due largely to the innovations o f one linguis t, Willia m La bov, who first took
linguis tics into the streets o f Ne w Yo r k (actually, in th« first ins tance , into
the de pa r tme nt stores (La bo v 1966)). In an urban conte xt, the classical
speech c ommunity mode l s oon be gins to br e a kdo w n; it no longe r serves as a
us e ful fo r m o f ide alization to which to re late the facts. Labov very soon
found tha t the inhabita nts o f a me tropolis are unite d much more by their
linguis tic attitude s and pre judice s , which are r e markably cons is te nt, chan by
the ir own speech habits, which are e xtre me ly var iable . The average New
Yo r ke r (o r Chicagoan, o r Lo ndone r , or Fr ankfur te r ) not only does not
s pe ak like all othe r Ne w Yor ke r s (o r Chicagoans e tc.); he doe s not even
s peak like hims e lf. He may be cons is te ni in his judge me nt on othe rs -
La bov’s s ubje cts s howe d s triking agre e me nt in the ir ratings o f recorded
utte rance s whe n as ked lo assign the s pe ake r to he r appr opr iate place on an
occupational scale - but he is far fr om be ing cons is te nt in his own practice.
Wh a t is mor e he is ofte n aware o f not be ing consistent^ and is worr ie d by the
fact. He has a conce ption o f ce rtain norms , from which he re gards hims e lf as
de viating so that there is a diffe re nce among (1 ) what he says (2 ) what he
thinks he says, and (3 ) what he thinks he ought to say. La bo v went so far as to
devise an ‘inde x o f linguis tic ins e curiiy" as a me as ure of the e xte nt o f a
s pe ake r’s de viation, as he hims e lf imagine s it> fr om his own as s ume d norms.
The urban 's pe e ch c o mmunity 1is a he te roge ne ous un it s howing diversity
not only be twe e n one individua l and a nothe r but also within one individual.
An d this leads us to re cognize a basic fact about urban speech: (hat the
language itse lf is variable . The linguis tic system, in othe r words, is a system
o f var iation. We cannot de scribe urban speech in te rms o f some invariant
norm and of de viation fr om it; the va r ia tion is intrins ic in the system. T o put
this anothe r way, the norms for urban speech arc made up o f spaces, not of
points. Many linguis ts , in fact would claim that this is a ge ne ral tr uth about
language . They would see language n o t a s a system o f invariants , the way the
layman (o r the philos ophe r o f language ) te nds to see it. but as a system w ith a
great de al of fle xibility in it.
T he re is no e vide nce that the man in the city s tre et has s ome ove rall
inte grate d speech s yste m lur king s ome whe re at the back of his mind.
Ra the r , he has inte rnalize d a patte rn that is e xtraordinar ily he te roge ne ous ;
and he reacts to this by picking o ut a fe w variable s and as signing normative
value to the m. The unifor mily , such as it is, take s the for m o f a consensus
about these value s. In a hie rarchical s ocial s tructure such a& is characteristic
o f o ur cultur e , the value s that are as s igne d to linguis tic variants are social
156 Language and social structure

value s and var iation serves as a s ymbolic expre s s ion o f the s ocial s tructure.
T o say that there is a cons e ns us does not me an that every social gr oup withm
ihe city inte rpre ts the social value of a linguis tic var iant in precisely the same
way. Wha t for one gr oup is a prestige for m to be a ime d at a t le as t in
s pe cifiable s ocial conte xts , for anothe r gr oup may be a s ource of ridicule and
social ave rs ion. B u i this is es s e ntially no diffe r e nt; it is the same phe nome *
non seen from anothe r po int o f view. T he variable in que s tion is highlighte d
as a carrie r o f s ocial me aning.
So the imme diate picture o f language in an ur ban conte xt is one o f
var iation in which s ome var iable s have s ocial value ; the y are ce rtifie d, so to
s pe ak, as social indice s , and are atte nde d to in care ful s peech. If we take the
s imple s t case, tha t o f a variable having jus t two forms , o r Var iants ', the n the
variants for m a contras ting pa ir o f one ‘high’ and one ‘lo w ’. In the following
pair o f sentences, e ithe r o f whic h might be he ard in Lo n d o n the re are five
such pairs o f variants :
I saw the ma n who did it, but I ne ve r to ld anybody
1 seen the bloke what done it, but I ne ve r to ld nobody
T he variants ar e : 1 saw / ] seen ma n / bloke , who / what, (he ) d id / (he ) done ,
ne ve r . • . anybody An e v e r . . . nobody. T he re are als o a numbe r of phone tic
fe ature s which are co ntinuous r athe r than pair e d, and which ar« not s hown
in the s pe lling; the vowe l s ounds , principally those in f and to ld y and als o the
final cons onant in but^ Any s pe ake r knows which ar e the high and which are
the low variants (whe re as there is no way for an outs ide r to guess). If he
contr ols both> his choice be twe e n tlie m is in s ome way re late d to the
s ituation o f use: the high for m is like ly to be us e d in contexts o f care ful
s peech but not in thos e o f cas ual s pe e ch. So it seems as if var iation in the
system is in s ome way re gulate d by the social conte xt.
An d so it is in a way, though no t in any s imple de te r minis tic fas hion. A
s pe ake r may use high variants in for mal conte xts and lo w variants in infor ­
mal conte xts : let us call this the congr ue nt patte r n. But he may als o use the
forms incongrue ntly: that is outs ide the conte xts which de fine the m as the
nor m. In so doing, he achie ve s a for e gr ounding effect, an e ffe ct that may be
humorous , or s tartling, or de ris ory or ma ny othe r things according to the
e nvir onme nt. T he s ignificant fact is that s uch var iation is me aningful. The
me aning o f a par ticular choice in a par ticular ins tance is a func tion of the
whole comple x o f e nvir onme ntal factors , factors which whe n take n toge the r
de fine any exchange o f me anings as be ing at s ome level a r e alization o f the
social system.
I s hall suggest be low tha t this is only the t ip of the ice be rg. It is not only
is olate d features of gr ammar and pr onunciation that are the be are rs o f social
value . There is a sense in which the whole linguis tic system is value- charged,
though tt is a sense that is rathe r diffe r e nt horn a n d als o de e pe r than that
which we have be e n cons ide ring. First howe ve r le t me r e turn br ie fly to the
conce pt of var iation in the linguis tic system. T he linguis tic system is, as I
expressed it, a system o f var iation - b a t the variation is within limits . In
 Language in ur ban society 157

general, urban s peech variants are variants o f one particular diale ct; and
they are not, in obje ctive terms, ve ry far apart. In this the y are rather
diffe re nt fr om the s urviving rural diale cts as found, for e x ample in Br itain.
The Br itis h r ur al diale cts , thos e fe w that r e main, almos t ce rtainly diffe r from
e ach othe r more wide ly than do any ur ban s pe e ch forms , Br itis h o r Ame ri-
can in the ir pr onunc ia tion, grammar and vocabular y. T his Last point - in
pronunciation, gr ammar a n d vocabulary - cons titute s a ve ry impor tant
provis o to which I s hall re turn. B u t w ith this provis o, we can say that e ve n
the mos t highly diffe r e ntiate d for ms o f speech in Ame r ic a n, £r t(is h.
Aus tr a lian or othe r Englis h- s pe aking cities - for e x ample , Midwe s te rn
upper- middle- class speech on the one hand a nd so- called Bla c k Englis h
Ve r nacular on the othe r - are not so far apar t as rural Yor ks hir e and rural
Somerse t, or e ve n as r ur al Yor ks hir e a nd urban London. Le t us admit
s traight away that this is an impre s s ionis tic judge me nt; we ca nnot meas ure
these differences. We can point to the fact tha t the pa ir o f rural diale cts jus t
cited would largely be mutually uninte lligible ; unfor tunate ly this doe s not
he lp us very much, be cause speech varie tie s that in obje ctive te rms are not
very far apar t are s ome time s be lie ve d by the ir s pe ake rs to be vas tly d if­
fe re nt a nd this cre ate s a gulf which is inte rpr e te d as (a nd so tur ne d into) a
condition o f mutual uninte lligibility. S pe ake rs Tjudge me nts o f these matte rs
te nd to be social r athe r than linguis tic: ‘we d o n ’t unde r s tand th e m ’ is an
obs e rvation about the social s tructure r athe r than a bo ut the linguis tic sys­
te m. So linguis tic dis tance , if we treat it as a pure ly linguis tic conce pt, is not
very he lpful or re liable . Ne ve rthe le s s it is tr ue that, in te rms o f var iation in
language as a whole , city diale cts are varie tie s that are confine d within
relatively narrow limits .
In talking about Miale ct’ and *standard% we ne e d to re fe r once again to the
dis tinction be twe e n diale ct and register. A diale ct is any varie ty o f a la n ­
guage that is de fine d by re fe re nce to the s pe ake r the diale ct you spe ak is a
function o f who you are. In this respect, a diale ct diffe rs fr om the othe r
dime ns io n o f varie ty in language , that of register: a re gis te r is a variety
de fine d by reference to the social conte xt * it is a function o f what you are
doing at the time . The diaie ct is what you s p^ak; the register is what you are
spe aking. It seems fo be typical o f huma n culture s for a s pe ake r to have more
than one diale ct, a nd for his diale ct s hifts, whe re they occur, to s ymbolize
shifts in register. A ‘s tandar d’ diale ct is one that has achie ve d a dis tinctive
status, in the for m o f a cons e ns us which re cognizes it as s e rving social
functions which in some sense trans ce nd the boundar ie s o f diale ct- s pe aking
groups. T his is ofte n as sociate d with wr iting - in ma ny cultur e s the s tandard
diaJect is re fe rre d to as the ‘lite rary [ i.e. writte n] la n g ua g e '- a n d w ith formal
e ducation. Because o f its spe cial status, s pe ake rs ge ne rally find it hard to
re cognize tha t the s tandar d diale ct is a t h e a r t 4jus t a dia le c t’ like any othe r. In
Englis h - speaking co u Tithes, received te r minology make s a contr as t be twe e n
's tandar d' (or 's tandar d language 1) a nd ‘diale ct in this way e mbodying the
distinctive social status of the s tandar d diale ct by re fus ing to classify it as a
diale ct at all. (F o r ‘dia le c t and ‘re gis te r’ see table 1 p. 35.)
158 Language and social structure

T o re turn to the facts o f var iation in the conte xt o f the city. T ypically the
various s ubcultur e s - s ocial class, gene r ational a nd othe r s —mar k the ms e lve s
off by the ir patte rns o f s e le ction within the range o f linguis tic varie ty.
Ce r tain fairly ge ne ral fe ature s o f pr onunc iation o r o f gr a mma r come to be
associated with a par ticular gr oup within the society - by othe rs , at first, but
s ubs e que ntly pe rhaps by the ms e lve s als o - and hence to serve as a s ymbol of
that gr oup. For e x ample , one group ma y be know n for putting in the r s ound
after a vowe l; or for le aving it o u t ; or for affr icating initial voiceless plosives,
as in a cup o f t se a, in ih e p f ark \ ox for not affr icating the m; o r for having no
de finite article ; or for the par ticular type of ne gation it uses; or for the type
o f s e nte nce structure it favours e .g. he 's n o t here is n 't T om versus T om is n't
here. Particular words may aJso func tion in this way, provide d they are words
of Teasonably high fre que ncy. (T his is n o t a re fe re nce to slang. Slang is more
s ubje ct to cons cious choice , a nd so is ofte n us e d by pe ople who are de lib­
erately a do pting a ce rtain s peech var iant for social purpos e s .) If you come
from outs ide , you are not s e ns itize d to these variants and may find it hard to
believe in the ir s ymbolic load; but to the ins ide r they are ludicrous ly obvi­
ous.
A diale ct, in pr inciple is s imply the s um o f any set o f variants that always
go toge the r, or at least that typically go toge the r. In city speech, such
configurations are by no me ans fixe d; we cannot set up a ne at clas s ification
of diale cts with diaJect A having ju s t s uch and such fe ature s , always co­
occurring, diale ct B having a diffe r e nt set o f fe ature s , a n d so on. T he actual
patte rn is more continuous and more inde te r minate . A t the same time , noc
e ve rything goes with e ve rything else* For any one variable , we can us ually
recognize a scale fr om high to low; a nd it is more like ly for high variants to
cooccur with e ach othe r , and for low variants to cooccur w ith e ach othe r,
than for the two to be r andomly mixe d. He nce ihe re are re gular groupings of
features that are re cognizable as typical configurations , and these te nd to
corre s pond with the ma in s ocioe conomic groupings in the community. An
ins ide r s oon knows> whe n he starts ta lking to the ma n next to him in the
train, whe re he come s fr om, what e duc ation he has had, and what kind o f a
jo b he does .
We still unde r s tand ve ry HttJe of the processes by which this rathe r
systematic patte rn o f socia] diale ct var iation arises. No de taile d account can
yet be give n o f patte rns o f inte rpe r s onal co mmunic a tion in ur ban contexts ;
but obvious ly pe ople o f diffe r e nt s ociai classes do talk to e ach o t h e r —there is
no mo unta in o r rive r s e parating the m (only the tracks ). Ye t the urban
speech varie tie s , as they e volve in the cours e o f tim e ’ d o not show (as it was
once e xpe cte d the y w ould) any notice able te nde ncy to conve rge . Change s
take place , but not s uch as to e liminate the diffe re nce s . If anything, Labov
finds the dive rs ity increasing. T he re is a te nde ncy to conve rge nce , but it is
not in the language itse lf — it is in the attitude s towards- language : pe ople
come more and more to share the same e valuations of e ach own and othe rs ’
speech. My inte r pr e tation o f the s ocial functions o f language will suggest
that this appar e nt paradox, o f incre as ingly unifo r m attitude s going toge the r
 Language in urban society 159

with incre as ingly dive r s ifie d pe r for mance , is not re ally a pa r adox at aU;
it is not so much the total diversity that is incre as ing but rathe r, the e x­
tent o f the corr e lation be twe e n this diversity a nd the social class s truc­
ture , Language come s more a nd more to func tion as a me as ure o f social
dis tance .
Some o f the actual forces and me chanis ms o f change are pr obably to be
fo und in the young c hild’s pe e r gr oup. O f the three primary s ocializing
agencies , the family, the pe e r gr oup a n d the s chool, the pe e r gr oup is the one
we know least about - for obvious re as ons since it has no adults in it. It is a
ne ighbour hood or ganization which in s ome s ubculture s may be very close-
knit - a ce ntre o f linguis tic s olidar ity, cle arly ide ntifying w ho in and who*s
out and at the same time allowing for move me nt in and o ut including the
very impor tant function o f ge tting back in again. It is als o a centre of
linguis tic innovation. T he vowe l- bre aking game , for e xample , seems to have
be e n going on in Englis h- s pe aking city childr e n's pe e r groups since the
middle ages, a nd it still is. (Vo w e l br e a king is what make s Ihe girl's name
An n s ound like the bo y ’s name Ian. Re la te d to it is a ge ne ral te nde ncy for the
Englis h vowe ls to chase the ms e lve s u p and ove r ins ide the mouth like m ilk
bo iling in a s auce pan, to us e Angus Mc Int o s h ’s live ly simiSe.) T his seems to
be one possible s ource o f change s o f the kind that take place within jus t one
social group.
B u i whate ve r the ir or igin, social diale cts are cle arly re cognize d and ide n­
tifie d in the community. A s ocial diale ct is a diale ct —a configur a tion o f
phone tic, phonologic al, gr ammatical and le xical fe ature s —that is as s ociate d
with, and s tands as a s ymbol for, s ome more or less obje ctive ly de finable
social group. Such groups typically carry popula r labe ls o f a s ociore gional
kind: Mower middle class s outh side\ and so on. Thes e labe ls are po pula r in
the sense that the re is a conce ption in pe ople ’s minds that corre s ponds to
the m and corre s ponds r athe r s pe cifically and cons is te ntly, o n the whole . In
anothe r sense, the y are no t popular : pe ople are ofte n e mbarras s e d about
us ing the m.
Mos t individuals pr obably have one social diale ct that is the ir nor mal
usage* a fo r m o f s pe e ch that is in some sense na tur al to the m, always with che
provis o that cons ide rable var iation is possible within it. At the same time
they can and ofte n do move outs ide this. A n individual in an ur ban s peech
c o mmunity is not, typically, impr is one d within one set o f s peech habits . He
te nds to have one linguis tic ide ntity which is unmar ke d, a s pe e ch range
within which his speech typically falls . But he als o has, ve ry fre que ntly, a
range o f var iation above and be yond this, within which he move s a t o u t
freely, in part at r andom a nd in par t s ys te matically. T he var iation is partly
unde r cons cious contr ol; a nd so a patte rn o f variants can be us e d by a
s pe ake r e ithe r where the s ituation de mands it, or whe re the s ituation doe s
not de ma nd it and hence its use as it were crcatcs the s ituation. If you
typically s pe ak in a ce rtain way a mo ng your work gr o up the n this form o f
s peech will e voke that e nvir onme nt whe n it i$ not pre se nt. (T his is the mos t
s ignificant evide nce for s aying tha t s peech varie ty is linke d to tha t e nvi­
160 Language and s ocial structure

r onme nt in the first place .) In this way diale ct var iation come s to play a part
in the linguis tic contests and ve rbal hum o ur in which ur ban speakers typi­
cally excel.
Language le nds its e lf to play, a nd urban speech is no e xce ption; it is
characte ris tically as s ociate d wieh ve rbal game s and conte s ts o f all kinds .
Story te lling is a common mode , and like many othe rs it is ofte n compe titive :
a cle ve r s toryte lle r can not only te ll rich s tories hims e lf but can als o contrive
to impove ris h e ve ryone els e’s. T he s wapping of ins ults in young childre n's
and adole s ce nts ’ pe e r groups is at once both an ins tance o f language play and
an appre ntice s hip in it, r e s e mbling many othe r forms o f play in having this
dual character. But ve rbal play als o e xte nds to highly e labor ate forms,
ranging from compe titive ve rs ifying to highly r itua lize d and ofte n very crue l
game s s uch as 4the law* in s outhe rn Italy, as de s cribe d by Va ilta nd (1958).
The types o f ve rbal pi ay tha t have rece ived mos t a tte ntion s eem to have been
pr e dominantly male activitie s ; it w ould be inte re s ting to know to what
extent the y have the ir counte r parts a mong wome n.
Ve r bal play involve s all e le me nts in the Ihiguis lic system fr om rhyme and
rhythm to vocabulary and s tructure . But the essence o f ve rbal play is playing
with me aning; inc luding, as in the e xample s cite d e arlie r, pla ying with the
me aning that is inhe r e nt in the s ocial structure* Va r ia tion in language is one
of the principal sources of mate rial for the s ociolinguis tic game . T o imitate
the pr onunc iation or gr ammar o f anothe r gr oup at the same time as taking
on par ticular roles and attitude s that are thought to be as sociate d with that
group is a powe rful me ans of cr e ating stereotypes, and o f upholding those
that alre ady exist. At the same time , the re is an impor ta nt de fe ns ive aspect
to de ve loping the s ociolinguis tic play pote ntial o f one ’s own varie ty o f the
language . A s ocial gr oup unde r pressure, aware tha t its own linguis tic norms
are d is value d by othe r gr oups will ofte n e laborate comple x forms o f ve rbal
play in which its own speech is unique ly highly value d.
T his brings me back to the point made e ar lie r, tha t ‘there is a sense in
which the whole linguis tic system is value - charge d / T his is s ome thing we
have to unde r s tand if we are tr ying to inte rpre t the s ignificance o f linguis tic
diversity in ur ban societies. Le t me pose the que s tion m this way: if we all live
in the same city, do we all me an the same things ?
T he imme diate ans we r is obvious ly no. We all re cognize our fr ie nds by
the ir individual ha bits of me a ning, as muc h as by the ir faces o r voices «r the ir
dress and way o f moving. A person is what he me ans . But individuals do not
exist o ut o f conte xt; the y exist in inte raction with othe rs , a nd me a ning is the
principal form tha t this inte r action takes. Me a ning is a s ocial act, and it is
cons traine d by the s ocial structure . Ou r habits o f me aning are those o f the
pe ople we ide ntify ours e lve s with, the primary refe rence groups tha t de fine
our s e miotic e nvir onme nt. Any one who in the cours e o f his own life has
s hifte d fr om one s ocial gr oup t o anothe r in the s ame city for e xample
middle- class family and working- class pe e r gr oup, or vice versa, knows that
he has had to le ar n to me an diffe r e nt things in the process. Mo ving fr om one
e thnic ne ighbour hood to anothe r involve s cons ide rable s e mantic r e ad­
 Language in ur ban society 161

jus tme nt. So doe s going into the army, going to a diffe r e nt kind o f jo b t or
going to ja il.
Wh y is this ? We are accus tome d to thinking o f diale ct diffe re nce s in te rms
o f pr onunciation, mor phology o r vocabulary - the more obvious sets o f
variable s , which are als o the things tha t change mos t quickly in language
ove r the course of time . But what are the first things to appe ar whe n an
infa nt is le ar ning to ta lk? The y are the fe ature s at the *o\ iter limits* o f the
linguis tic system, the two plane s whe re language impinge s o n othe r aspects
o f re ality: at one e nd, the funda me nta l rhythms a nd intona tio n patte rns of
s peech, the springs o f s ound in ches t and thr oat; a nd, a t the othe r e nd, the
me anings , or r athe r the essential ways of me aning, the s e mantic habits that
are associated w ith the various conte xts o f language use. Thes e are very
de e ply s unk into our cons cious ne ss . They persist thr oug h tim e a nd thr ough
aJl kinds of changes in the for mal e le me nts o f the system. T his is the provis o
that was made earlie r, in refe rence to the kind of dis tance s e parating urban
s peech varie ties one fr om anothe r . If there is an Afr ic a n substrate in Black
En g lis h - a n d there are good reas ons for thinking tha t there is - it is like ly to
be locate d in the unde r lying rhythms and intona tio n patte rns , and airs tre am
me chanis ms , on the one ha ndt a nd in the de e pe s t te nde ncie s o f me aning, the
s e mantic patte rns on the othe r , r athe r than in the more obvious pho no lo g ­
ical and mor phological fe ature s that are mos t fr e que ntly cite d in this c o n­
nection.
Wit h in any pluralis tic community, the diffe re nt social groups have d if­
fe re nt habits o f me aning: diffe r e nt 'socioLinguistic coding or ie nta tions 1, as
Be r ns te in (1 9 75 ) calls the m. Diffe r e nt social groups te nd to associate d if­
fe re nt kinds o f me a ning with a given social conte xt; they have diffe r e nt
conce pts o f the s e miotic s tructure o f the s ituation. Wha t one gr o up inte r ­
pre ts as an occas ion for a public de clar ation o f private fa ith may be seen by
the s econd gr oup as an exchange of obs e rvations about the obje ctive world,
and by a thir d gr oup as s ome thing else again - as a game , for e xample .
Inte raction be twe e n the ge ne rations , and be twe e n the sexes, is full of
s emiotic mis matche s o f this kind. It is not jus t the individual as an individual
that we ide ntify by his s e mantic pr ofile ; it is the individual as a me mbe r of his
sociak group. T he city- dweller is r e mar kable only in the numbe r o f diffe r e nt
social groups in which he typically holds a me mbe r s hip at any one time .
Since social groups diffe r in what they ad o pt as the ir mode of me a ning in
any give n conte x t the me aning styles come to be charge d with the social
v^lue that attaches to these groups thems elves . T his is why pe ople in cities
te nd to have very s trongly felt attitude s towards the linguis tic varie ties in
their own ambie nce . T he y dis tinguis h w ith some force be twe e n an appr ove d
varie ty> the ‘s tandard*’ and othe r varie tie s ( ‘nons tandar d o r ‘diale ct ) of
which they dis approve . But since they c a nno t de scribe these var ie tie s in any
systematic way, they pick out fr om the we alth o f phonological a nd gr a m­
matical fe ature s that axe •nons tandar d' ce r tain one s that serve as the focus o f
e xplicit social attitude and comme nt. In Br ita in a nd als o in ancie nt Rome ,
the ‘dr opping o f aitche s ' (le a ving out k in initial pos ition) be came for e ­
162 Language and social structure

grounde d as a s ymbol o f s ocially unacce ptable speech. In Ne w Yor k

it is the abs e nce of pos tvocalic a nd final r (which in Br ita in is a fe a­
ture of the 's ta nda r d1 diale ct; it is ‘nons tandard* to put the r m). And
the re are ce r tain phonologic al and mor phologic al fe ature s o f Black Englis h
Ve r nacular tha t are s ingle d o u t and used to characte rize this varie ty o f
Englis h.
Linguis ts have be e n ins is ting for many decades, a nd no d o u b t will be
ins is ting for ma ny de cades to come , on the fact tha t no one form o f s pe e ch
no single diale ct o f a language , is intrins ically more worthy o f respect than
any othe r . The diffe re nce s be twe e n diale cts have to do not w ith language as
a system, but with language as an ins titution - as a ve hicle and a s ymbol for
the social s tructure . T he conc e pt o f a ‘s tandar d la ngua ge ’ is an ins titutional
conce pt; ii refers to the s tatus o f a par ticular diale ct, and !o (he s pre ad of
functions that it serves, not to any intrins ic e le me nts in the diale ct itself.
Wha t the n is the source o f the very de e ply he ld attitude s ? Why are many city
pe ople so viole nt in c o nde m ning what they cons ide r ‘s ubs tandar d’ forms of
s \
ans we r s e e ms to be that, although tKe attitude s are e xplicitly for­
mulate d in conne ction w ith imme dLate ly accessible matte rs o f pr onunciation
and word formation, what is actually be ing re acte d to is s ome thing much
deeper. Pe ople are re acting to the fact that othe rs me an diffe r e ntly from
t h e m s e lv e s ; a nd they feel thre ate ne d by it. It is not jus t a s imple que s tion o f
dis liking ce rtain s ounds , though tha t is the fo r m it takes o n the surface; but o f
be ing anxious about ce rtain ways o f me aning. The tr ouble lies not in a
diffe r e nt vowe l system b ut in a diffe r e nt value system. If I obje ct to s ome ­
body's vowe ls s ounds , or t o the s tructure o f the ir sentences, I a m like ly to
express my o bje c tion e ithe r as ae s the tic ( ‘they are ugly1) or as pragmatic
(‘the y are a bar rie r to c o m m unic a tio n1) or both. This is how I feel it to be.
But I am re ally obje cting to these things as symbols . An d be ing linguis tic
s ymbols , the y are doubly charge d: the y func tion o n the one hand dire ctly, as
indices o f the s ocial structure, like be ards and styles o f dress, a nd on the
othe r hand indire ctly, as part o f the r e alization o f the me anings through
which the s pe ake r is acting out his s ubcultur al ide ntity.
Language is only one o f the ways in which pe ople re pre s e nt the me anings
that arc inhe r e nt in the social system. In one sense, they ar e re pre s e nte d
(tha t is, e xpre s s e d) als o by the way pe ople move the clothe s they we ar, the ir
e ating habits and the ir othe r patte rns of be haviour. In the othe r sense, they
are re pre s e nte d (that is, me ta pho r ize d) by the way pe ople classify things , the
rules they set up and othe r mode s of thought. Language ‘re pres ents in both
these senses. It is able to do this be cause it encode s , at one and the same
time, both our e xpe rie nce of re ality and o ur re lations hips with e ach othe r.
Language me diate s be twe e n ours e lve s and the two compone nts of our
e nvir onme nt, the natur al e nvir onme nt a nd the s ocial e nvir onme nt; a nd it
doe s so in such a way tha t e ach be come s a me t aphor o f the othe r . Eve ry
social gr oup de ve lops its ow n pa r ticular vie w o f the w or ld and o f society.
An d the existence o f these diffe r e nt and compe ting mode ls , whe re they
 Language in ur ban society 163

jos tle each othe r in cr owde d cities, is ve ry e as ily fe lt as a thre at to the social
orde r.
So it come s about that large numbe r s o f city childre n learn to s peak - that
is, as I would inte r pr e t it, the y le arn to me a n - in ways which are inc om­
patible with e s tablis he d social norms . T his w ould no t matte r, if it was not for
the fact that these nor ms are e mbodie d in the principle s and practices o f
e ducation. The result is a massive proble m o f e ducational failur e , or e d u­
cational resistance. T he proble m o f e duc ationa l failure is no t a linguis tic
pr oble m, if by linguis tic we me an a pr o ble m o f diffe r e nt ur ban dialects,
though it is complicate d by diaJect factors e s pe cially diale ct attitude s ; but it
is at bo tto m a s e miotic proble m* conce r ne d w ith the diffe r e nt ways in which
we have cons tructe d o ur social r e a lity a nd the styles o f me a ning that we
have le ar nt to associate with the various as pects o f it. My me anings , the
s e mantic resources I de ploy in a par ticular s ocial conte xt, may not be the
same as y our me anings , or as your e x pe ctation of what my me anings s hould
be ; and tha t can lead to a be wilde r ing lack o f communic ation be twe e n us.
A city is not a speech community, in the classical sense. Its inhabitants
obvious ly do not all ta lk to e ach othe r . T he y do not alt s pe ak alike ; and
furthe r more the y do not me a n alike . B u t a city i$ an e nvir onme nt in which
me anings are e xchange d. In this process, conflicts arise, s ymbolic conflicts
which are no less real than conflicts ove r e conomic inte re s t; a nd these
conflicts contain the me chanis m o f change . It is fas cinating to linguis ts to
find that t hey contain s ome o f the me chanis ms o f linguis tic change, so that by
s tudying these processes we gain new insights into the his tory of language .
But the y are als o a s ource o f new insights into the nature o f c ultur a l change ,
change s in the re ality that e ach one o f us cons tructs for hims e lf in the course
of inte r action with othe rs . T he city- dweller’s picture o ft h e univers e is not, in
the typical instance^ one o f or de r and cons tancy. Bu t at Least it ha s —or could
have if allowe d to —a compe ns ating qua lity that is o f s ome s ignificance : the
fact that many very diffe r e nl groups o f pe ople have contr ibute d to the
ma king o f it.
Antilanguages

O f the various kinds o f ‘a nti’- word s uch as antibiotic^ antibody, antinove l,

antimatte r and so o n the kind that is lo be unde r s tood here is thai re p­
resented by antis ocie ty. A n antis ocie ty is a society lh a t is set up within
anolhe r socieiy as a cons cious alte rnative to it. It is a mode o f resistance,
resistance which may take the for m e ithe r o f passive s ymbios is or o f active
hos tility a nd even de s truction.
A n antilanguage is not only paralle l to an antis ocie ty; it is in fact ge ne rate d
by it. We do not know much about e ithe r the process or its outcome , because
mos t of the e vide nce we have is on the level o f travellers* tale s ; but it is
re as onable to s uppos e tha t in the mos t ge ne ral terms, an antilanguage
stands to an antis ocie ty in much the s ame r e lation as doe s a language to a
society. Eithe r pair, a society a nd its Language or an antis ocie ty and its (a nti)
language , is, e qua lly an ins tance of the pr e vailing s ociolinguis tic orde r.
It has c ommonly be e n fo und with othe r as pects o f the human condition
- the social s tructure , or the individua l ps yche - tha t the re is much to
be le arnt from pathological manife s tations , whic h are s e ldom as clearly
set o ff fr om the ‘no r m a l’ as the y at first appe ar . In the same way a study
of s ociolinguis tic pathology may le ad to a dditio na l ins ight into the social
s e miotic.
In Eliza be than Eng la nd the counte r cultur e o f vagabonds , o r 'curs itors '
in T homas Ha r m a n’s (1 5 6 7) mock- stylish de s ignation, a vast popula tion o f
criminals who live d o ff the we alth o f the e s tablis he d society, had the ir own
tongue , o r ‘pe lting ( = paltry) s pe e ch7; this is fre que ntly re fe rre d to in
conte mpor ar y accounts , though rare ly described o r e ve n illus trate d with any
de taile d accuracy. T he antis ocie ty o f mode r n Calcutta has a highly
de ve lope d language o f its own, s ubs tantially docume nte d by Bhaktipr as ad
Ma llik in his book Language o f the unde rw orld o f West Be ngal (1972), The
‘s econd Jife\ the le r m used by Ad a m Podgor e cki (1973 } to describe the
s ubculture of Polis h prisons and re for m s chools , is acc ompanie d by an
e laborate d antilanguage calle d *grypserka\ We s hall take these as our three
cases for discussion.
Wh a t can be said about the characte ris tics o f antilanguage s ? Like the
early records o f the language s o f e xotic culture s , the infor mation usually
come s to us in the form o f word lists. Thes e afford only very limite d
pos s ibilitie s of inte r pr e tation, a lthough the y are pe r haps s lightly more re ­
ve aling here than in othe r conte xts be caus e o f the s pe cial re lation that
 Antilanguage s 165

obta ins be twe e n an antilanguage a nd the language to which it is coun*

te rpose d.
T he simplest for m take n by an anti language is that of new words for old; it
is a language re le xicalize d. It s hould not be as s ume d lh a t it always arises by a
process o f fis sion, s plitting o ff from an e s tablis he d language ; but this is one
poss ibility, and it is eas ie r to talk about it in these te rms . T ypically this
re le xicalization is par tial, not total; not all words in the language have the ir
e quivale nts in the antilanguage . (F o r an inte re s ting case o f total relex-
icalization compare ihe Dyir ba l mother- in- law language as de s cribe d by
Dix o n (1970) - pe rhaps a re late d phe nome non, since this is the language
used by the adult male to his affinal kin, who cons titute a kind of
ins titutionalize d antis ocie ty within s ocie ty.) The principle is that o f same
grammar , diffe re nt vocabulary; but diffe re nt vocabular y only in ce rtain
areas typically thos e that are ce ntral lo the activitie s o f the s ubculture and
that set it o ff mos t s harply fr om the e s tablis he d society* So we expe ct to find
ne w words for type s o f cr iminal act, a nd classes of c r iminal a nd o f vic tim ; for
tools o f the trade ; for police a nd othe r re pre s e ntative s o f the law e nforce ­
me nt structure o f the society; for pe naltie s , pe nal ins titutions , and the like .
T he EJizabe than chronicle rs o f the pe lting s peech list upwards o f twe nty
te rms for the ma in clas s e s of me mbe rs o f the frate rnity o f vagabonds , s uch as
upright m an , rogue y wUd rogue^ prigge r o fpranc e rs ( = horse thie f), c oun­
terfeit crank , jark m an, baw dy bas k e t Hfalking m ortt k inc hin m ort, dox y and
d e l i nume r ous te rms for s pe cific role s m the ir ofte n highly e laborate vil­
lainie s , a nd name s for the strategies the ms e lve s , which are known col­
lectively as laws - for e xample lifting law (s te aling package s ) which involve s
Silifiy a m ark e r and 镳sartter (the one who steals the package , the one to whom
it is h a n d e d , a nd the one w ho w a it s o u t s id e to carry it off ) name s for the
tools , e.g. wresters (fo r picking locks ), and for the spoils, e .g. s nappings , or
garbage ; and name s for various pe naltie s that may be s uffe re d, s uch as cly ing
the je rk (be ing whippe d) o r trining on the chats (ge tting hange d).
Such features be lo ng lo our comtnons e ns e pictur e o f a n argot, o r cant (to
give it its Eliza be than na me ). By the ms e lve s , they are no more than the
technicaJ and s e mite chnical fe ature s o f a special re gis te r; the y a mount to an
antilanguage only if we admit into this cate gory s ome thing that is s imply the
profe s s ional ja r 其 on as sociate d with the activitie s o f a cr iminal c o un­
terculture.
It is notice able , howe ve r, that e ve n these pure ly te chnical e le me nts seem
to be s ome what large r than life. T he language is not me re ly re le xicalize d in
these areas; it ls ove rle xicalize d. So in Ma liik's account o f the Calcutta
unde r wor ld language we find not jus t one word fo r ‘bomb* b ut twe nty- one;
forty- one words for ‘p o lic e a n d so on (1 9 7 2 ,2 2 - 3 ). A few o f these are als o
te chnical expressions for specific s ubcate gorie s ; but mos t of the m are not -
they are by or dinar y s tandards s ynonymous , and the ir pr olife r ation would
be e xpJaine d by s tude nts o f s lang as the re s ult of a neve r- e nding s e arch for
or iginality, eit he r for the sake o f live line s s a nd humour or, in s ome cases, far
the sake o f secrecy.
 166 Language and social structure

B u t there is more to it than that. If we cons ide r unde r wor ld language s in

te rms o f a ge ne ral compar is on with the language s o f the ove nvor ld, we find
in the m a characte ris tic functional or ie nta tio n away fr om the e xpe rie ntial
mode o f me a ning towards the inte rpe r s onal and the te xtual inode s . Both the
textual or ie nta tion (the ‘s e t’ towards the message, in Jakobs on^s te rms ) and
the inte rpe rs onal (the ‘s e t towards addres s er/addres se e, a lthough as we
s hall suggest this is to be inte r pr e te d r athe r as a set towards the social
s tructure ) te nd to produce this ove rle x icalization: the forme r be caus e it
takes the form o f ve rbal compe tition and dis play, in which ke nnings o f all
kinds are at a pr e mium; the latte r be caus e sets o f words which are de no ta ­
tively s ynonymous are clearly dis tinguis he d by ihe ir a tt itudinal compone nts .
Ma llik ’s twe nty- four s ynonyms for ‘g ir l include the whole range o f pre ­
dictable connotations - give n that, as he re marks , "the language o f the
cr iminal world [ with s ome e xceptions ] is e s s e ntially 总male s ’ language 1(27).
Bo th o f these are no r ma l features o f eve ryday language , in which te xtual
and inte rpe rs onal me anings are inte rwove n with e x pe rie ntial me anings into
a single fabric o f dis cours e . Wh a t characte rize s what we are calling anti-
language s is the ir re lativ e ly greater or ie nta tion in this dire ction. In all la n­
guages, words, s ounds a nd s tructure s te nd to bccomc charge d with social
value ; it is to be e xpe cte d that, in the antitanguage , the social value s will be
more clearly fore grounde d* This is an ins tance of what Be r ns te in refers to as
the ‘s ociolinguis tic coding or ie nta tio n’ the te nde ncy to associate ce rtain
ways of me aning w ith ce r tain s ocial conte xts . Any inte r pr e ta tion o f the
phe nome non o f antilanguage s involve s some the ory about what kinds o f
me aning are e xchange d in diffe re nt e nvir onme nts within a culture .
Le t us try a nd ans we r more s pe cific a Uy the que s tion why antilanguage s
are used. Ma llik in fact put this que s tion to "a large numbe r o f cr iminals and
antis ocial e le me nts ’ - 4 6 0 in all; he got 385 re plie s (inc luding only 26 ‘d o n ’t
know ’) o f which \ 5S e x pla me d it as the ne e d for secrecy, and 132 as
communicative force or ve rbal art. In Podgore cki's account o f the ‘s econd
life both these motifs figure pr omine ntly : one o f the ways in which an
inmate ca n be downgrade d to the level o f a "sucker* in the s ocial hie rare hy is
by br e aking the rules of ve rbal conte s t, and anothe r is by 's e lling the secret
language to the p o lic e '(1 9 7 3 ,9 ). But the fact that an antilanguage is used fo r
clos e d co mmunic a tion and for ve rbal ar t does not me an that these are what
gave rise to it in the first place . It w ould be pos s ible to create a language jus t
for purpos e s o f conte s t a nd dis play; but this har dly seems s ufficie nt to
account for the or igin of the e ntire phe nome non. The the me o f secrecy is a
fa miliar one in what we might call 'folk antiUnguistics* - in me mbe r s ’ and
outsiders* e x planations o f the us e o f an antilanguage . No do ubt it is a part o f
the tr uth: effective te amwork doe s de pe nd, at time s , o n e x changing me a n­
ings that are inaccessible to the victim, and c ommunic a tio n a mong pris one rs
must take place w ithout the par ticipation o ft h e gaoler. But while secrecy is a
necessary strategic pr ope r ty o f antilanguage s , it is unlike ly to be the major
cause of the ir existence. Secrecy is a fe ature o f the ja r gon r athe r than a
de te rminant o f the language .
 Antilanguage s 167

Wh a t the n lies be hind the e me rge nce o f the antilangua ge ? Ye t anothe r

way o f be ing ‘s ucke re d do w n’ is by 'malicious ly re fus ing to le arn Xhegryp-
serka \ a nd it is cle ar from Podgore cki's dis cus s ion tha t the re is an ins e par­
able conne ction be twe e n the ‘s e cond life ’ and the antilanguage that is
associated with it. T he ‘gryps e r ka’ is no t jus t an optiona l extra, s e rving to
adorn the s econd life with conte s t a nd dis play while ke e ping it successfully
hidde n from the pris on authoritie s . It is a funda me nta l e le me nt in the
existence o f the "second life* phe nome non.
He r e is P o dgor e c ki^ initial s umming up:
T he essence o f the s e cond life cons is ts in a s e cular s tr a tification which c a n be
r e duce d to the divis ion o f the inmate s in t o ‘pe o p le ’ and *suckers\ . . . T he pe ople
are independent and they have power over ihe suckers. Everyday second life is
s tr ongly r itua lize d. T he body of the s e r itua ls are c al Icdgrypserka (f rom grypa - a
s lang wor d de s ignating a le tte r s muggle d s e cre tly t o o r fr om a pr is on);
S. Malkowska defined this as ‘the inmates* language and its grammar’ In (his
language, ce rtain. , . words. . . are insulting and noxious either to the speaker or
to one to w ho m the y ar e addre s s e d. (7 )
The language come s to the inve s tigator's atte ntion in the conte xt o f the
fa miliar twin the me s o f r itual ins ult a nd secrecy. But Podgor e cki1s discussion
of the 's e cond life ’ s hows that it is much more than a way of pas s ing the time .
It is the acting out of a dis tinct social s tructure ; a nd this social structure is, in
turn, the be are r o f an alte rnative social reality*
O n closer s crutiny, the Polis h inve s tigators fo und lh a t the divis ion into
pe ople a nd suckers was only the pr incipal divis ion in a more e labor ate social
hierarchy. T he re we re two classes o f ‘pe ople , a nd thre e o f ^suckers'; with
some degree o f mobility a mong the m, though anyone w ho ha d once re ached
the highe s t or lowest cate gory stayed the re . T he re we re a numbe r o f othe r
variable s ’ bas e d on age, prove nance (ur ba nMir a l), type o f offence, and
pris on s tanding (first offe nde r/old lag); and the place o f an individua l in the
social s tructure was a function of his s tatus in re spe ct o f e ach of these
hie rarchie s . Ac c ount was also take n o f his status in the free unde r world,
which, along with othe r factors , sugge sted that ‘s econd life 1 was not a
product o f the pris on, or o f pris on conditions , but was impor te d from the
cr iminal s ubculture outs ide . Ne ve rthe le s s
. , . ihe incarcerated create in their own social system a uniq ue stratification
which is based on the caste principle. The caste adherence in the case o f‘second
life1 is based not on a given social background or physical features, but is
predominantly determined by a unique link with magical rules which are not
functional for the social system in which they operate. The only function which
these rules have is to sustain the caste system. (14)
Compar ative data from Ame r ica n sources quote d by Podgdr e cki show the
existence o f a s imilar form of social or ganization in corre ctional ins titutions
in the Unite d State s diffe r ing ma inly in that e ach of the two antisocie tie s
appe ars as a dis tor te d re fle ction of the s tructure o f the particular society
fr om which it derives.
 168 Language and social structure

Fodgdr e cki cites e x planations of the ‘s e cond life T as re s ulting fr o m c o n ­

ditions o f is ola tion or fr om the ne e d to re gulate sexual be haviour, and
re je cts the m as inade quate . He suggests ins te ad tha t it arises from the ne e d
to ma inta in inne r s olidarity unde r pressure, a nd that this is achie ve d through
an accumulation o f punis hme nts and rewards:
Second life is a system which transforms the universal reciprocity of pun-
ishmencs into a pattern of punishments and rewards, arranged by the principles
ofscratification. Some members of (he community are in a position to iransform
(he punishments into rewards.
11 might be said that this type of artificial social stratification possesses
features of collective r^preseniaiion which transform the structure of existing
needs into an operating fabric of social life vrhich tries to satisfy these needs in a
way which is viable in the given conditions. (20)
T he fo r mula is the re fore :

Amisociety Society

which is the Le vi- Slraus s ian pr opo r tio n b! : ba :: a : b (cf. Bo ur die u 1971).
At the individual level, the s econd life provide s the me ans o f ma inta ining
ide ntity in the face o f its thr e ate ne d de s truction:
in a world \ nwhich there are no real tilings, a man is reduced to the status of a
thing. . . . The establishment of a reverse world (in which reducing others to
things beco mes a source of gratification by transform ing a punitive situation into
a rew arding one) can also be seen as a desperate attempt to rescue and reinte­
grate the self in the face of the cumulative oppression which threatens to
disintegrate it. Thus 'second life^... can be interpreted as a defence and a means
of reconstruction^ to which the self resorts just before total disruption by means
o f mutua lly e nha nc ing oppre s s ive force s . {P odgor e c ki 1973, 2 4 )

T he s econd life is a re cons truction o f the individual and society. It p r o ­

vides an alte rnative social structure , with its systems of value s, o f s anctions ,
o f re wards and punis h me nts ; and this be come s the source o f an alte rnative
ide ntity for its me mbe rs , thr ough the patte rns o f acce ptance and gr a tifi­
cation. In othe r words the s econd life is an alte rnative re ality.
It is in this light that we can be s t appre ciate the func tion of the s econd life
anhlanguage , the gryps e rka. T he gryps e rka serves to cre ate and ma inta in
this alte rnative re ality. An antilanguage is, in this re spe ct, no diffe re nt fr om
a language "prope r * bo th are reality- gene rating systems. But be cause o ft h e
special characte r of the s econd life re ality - its status as an alte rnative , unde r
cons tant pressure fr om the re ality that is 'out the r e ’ (which is still a s ub­
 Amila ngua ge s 169

jective r e ality but nevertheless s tands always re ady to be r e affirme d as a

nor m) - the re ality- ge ne rating force o f the antilanguage > a nd es pecially its
powe r to create and m a int a in social hie r ar chy is s trongly for e grounde d.
A t this point we s hould quote at s ome le ngth a critically re le vant passage
from Be rge r and Luc kma nn's T he s ocial cons truction o f re ality (1966,
172- 3 )
The most important vehicle of reality- maintenance is conversation* One may
view Ibe individual's everyday life in terms of the working away of a con*
v«rsational apparatus that ongoingiy maintains, modifies and reconstructs his
subjective reality. Conversation means mainly, of course, lhat people speak with
one another. This does not deny the rich aura of nonverbal communication that
surrounds speech. Nevertheless speech retains a privileged position in the total
conversational apparatus. It is important to stress, however, (hat the greater part
of reality- maintenance in conversation is implicu, not explicit. Most con­
versation docs not in so many word^ define the nature of the world. Rather, ic
takes place against the background of a world that is silently taken for granted.
T hus a n e xchange s uch as , 4Wel1, it’s time fo r me to get to the station\ a nd 'F ine ,
darling, have a good day at the office \ implies an entire world which these
apparently simple propositions make sense. By virtue of this implication the
exchange confirms the subjective reality of this world.
If (his is understood, one will readily see that the greac part, if not all, of
everyday conversation maintains subjective feality. Indeed, its massivity is
achieved by ihe accumulation and consistency of casual conversation - con-
versaiion that can afford to be casual precisely because it refers to the routine of
a taken- for- granted world. The loss of casualness signals a break in the routines
and, at least potentiaHy« a threat to the taken- for- granted reality. Thus one may
imagine the effect on casualnessof an exchange Jike this: ‘Well, it's time for me
to get to the station*’ 6Fine, darling, don't forget to take along your gun.'
Al the same lime that the conversational apparatus ongoingly maintains
reality, it ongoingly modifies it. Items are dropped and added, weakening some
sectors of what is still being taken for granted and reinforcing others. Thus the
subjective reality of something (hat is never talked about comes to be shaky. It is
one thing to engage in an embarrassing sexual act. It is quite another to talk
abo«i it beforehand or afterwards. Conversely, conversation gives firm contours
to items previously apprehended in a fleeting and unclear manner. One may
have doubts about one’s religion: these doubts become real in a quite different
way as one discusses them. One then ‘talks oneself into1 these doubts: they are
objectified as reality within one ^ own consciousness. Generally speaking, the
conversational apparatus maintains reality by ‘talking through' various ele­
ments of experience and allocating them a definite place in the real world,
This re al i(y- ge ne rati ng potency of conversation is already given in the fact of
linguistic objectification. We have seen how language objectifies the world
transforming the panta rhei of experience into a cohesive order. In the estab­
lishment of this order language realizes a world, in the double sense of
apprehending and producing it. Conversation is the actualizing of this realizing
efficacy of language in the face- to- face situation of individual existence. In
conversation the objectifications of language become objects of individual
170 Language and s ocial structure

consciousness. Thus the fundamentaf realily- maintaming fact is (he continuing

use of the same language to objectify unfolding biographical experience. In the
widest sense, al) who employ this same language are reality- maintaining others.
The significance of this can be fu rrhc r diffe rc nt ia ted in terms of what is meant by
a 'common language'- from the group- idiosyncratic language of primary groups
to regional or class dialects to the national communiiy lhat defines itself an terms
o f language .

A n ind ividua l’s s ubje ctive re ality is cre ate d and ma inta ine d through
inte raction with othe rs , who are 's ignificant others* precisely be cause the y
fiJI this roie : a nd such inte raction is, critically, ve rbal - it take s the for m o f
conve rs ation. Conve r s ation is not, in ge ne ral, didactic; the ‘othe r s are not
teachers nor d o the y cons cious ly ‘kno w ’ the re ality they are he lping co
cons truct. Conve r s ation in Be r ge r a nd Luc kma nn's te rm cas ual. Be rge r
and Luc kma nn do not ask the que s tion, what mus t language be like for
cas ual conve rs ation to have this magic powe r? T he y are not conce r ne d with
the nature o f the linguis tic system. F o r linguis tics , howe ve r, this is a ce ntral
pr o ble m; and fo r linguis tics in the perspective o f a ge ne ral s ocial s e miotic, it
might be s aid to be the ce ntral pr oble m: how can we inte r pr e t the linguis tic
system in s uch a way as to e xplain the magical powe r s of conve rs ation?
Le t us cons ide r the antilanguage in this light. As Be rge r a n d Luc kma nn
point out, s ubje ctive re ality can be trans forme d:
To be in society already emails an ongoing process of modification of sub­
jective reality. To talk about transformation, then1 involves a discussion of
different degrees o f modification. We will concentrate here on the extreme case,
in which there is a near- total transformation; that is, in which the individual
'switches worlds*___Typically, the transformation is subjectively apprehended
as total. This, of course, is something of a misapprehension. Since subjective
reality is never totally socialized, it cannot be totally transformed by social
proc- csses. At the very least the transformed individu- al will have the same body
and live in the same physical universe. Nevertheless there are instances of
tr a ns fo r ma tio n th a t a ppe a r lota] if c ompa r e d w ith lesser modific ations . Such
transformations we wilJ call alternations.
Alternation requires processes of re- socialization. (176)
T he antilanguage is the ve hicle o f such r^s ocialization. It cre ate s an alte r ­
native re ality: the process is one not o f cons tr uction b ut of re cons truction.
T he success co nditio n for such a re cons truction is in Be r ge r a nd Luck-
mann's words , ‘the availability o f an e ffe ctive plaus ibility s tructure , that is, a
social base s erving as the "laboratory'1 o f tr ans for mation. T his plaus ibility
structure wilJ be me diate d to the individual by me ans of s ignificant others,
with w hom he mus t e s tablis h s trongly affe ctive ide ntific a tion' (1 7 7 ).
T he processes o f re s ocialization, in othe r words , make s pe cial kinds o f
de mand o n language . In par ticular , these processes mus t e nable the in d i­
vidua l to ^establish s trongly affe ctive ide ntific ation’ with the s ignificant
others. Conve r s ation in this conte xt is like ly to rely he avily on the fo r e ­
grounding o f inte rpe r s onal me anings , e s pe cially whe re , as in the case o f the
 Antilanguage s 171

s econd life the corne rs tone o f the new re ality is a new s ocial s tructure -
although, by the s ame toke n the inte rpe r s onal e le me nts in the e x change o f
me anings are like ly to be fairly highly ritualize d.
But it is a characte ris tic o f an antilanguage that it is not jus t an ordinary
language which happe ns to be , for ce r tain individuals , a language o f
re s ocializing. Its conditions o f use are diffe r e nt fr om the types o f alte mat ion
cons ide re d by Be rge r and Luckmann* such as for ms of re jigious conve rs ion.
In s uch ins tance s an individual take s ove r what fo r othe rs is the re ality; for
him it involve s a tr ans for mation but the re ality its e lf is not inhe r e ntly of this
orde r. It is s om e body 's o r dina r y e ve ryday, unma r ke d re ality, and its \ an-
guage is s om e body 's ‘mothe r tongue . A n antilanguage , howe ve r, is
nobody’s mothe r tongue ’ it exists s ole ly in the conte xt of re s ocialization’
and the re ality it creates is inbe r e nlly an alte rnaiive re aiity, one (hat in
cons tructe d precisely in or de r to function in alte r nation. It is the language o f
an antisociety.
O f course, the boundar y be twe e n the two is not har d and fast. The early
Chris tian c ommunity was an antis ocie ty, a nd its language was in this sense an
antilanguage . But ne ve rthe le s s the re are s ignificant diffe re nce s . Alte r na tion
does not o f its e lf involve any kind o f antilanguage : me rely the switch from
one language to anothe r . (It could be s aid that, in the perspective o f the
individual, the s e cond is in fact func tioning as an antilanguage . T hus for
e xample in Agne s 's re cons truction o f an ide ntity, as de s cribe d by Ga r finke l
(1 9 6 7) in his famous case- history, the language o f fe mininity, or rathe r of
fe male ne ss , was for he r an antilanguage , since it was r e quir e d to cons truct
what was in the conte xt a counte r- ide ntity. Bu t a language is a social
cons truct; Agne s did not> and could not by he rs e lf, create a linguis tic system
to serve as the me d ium for the re cons truction. Inde e d, to do so would have
s abotage d ihe whole effort* since Us success de pe nde d on the new ide ntity
appe ar ing, and be ing acce pte d, as if it had been there fr om the s tart.) The
antilanguage arises whe n the alte rnative re ality is acou/i/^r- re ality. set up in
oppos ition to s ome e s tablis he d nor m.
It is thus not be twe e n the two re alitie s but the te ns ion be twe e n
the m that is s ignificant. T he dis tance ne e d not be ve ry gre at; the one is, in
fact, a me taphor ical var iant o f the othe r (jus t as gryps e rka is cle ar ly a variant
o f Polis h and not s ome tota lly alie n language ). Mor e ove r unlike what
happe ns in a tr ans for mation o f the re ligious conve rs ion kind the individual
may in fact switch back and for th be twe e n s ocie ty and anti- society, with
varying degrees o f inte r me diate s tanding: the c r iminal s ubcultur e outside
the pris on is in that sense inte r me diate be twe e n che s econd life and the
e s tablis he d society.
Ma llik like wis e ide ntifie s three dis tinct groups of pe ople us ing the unde r ­
world language of Be ngal: cr iminals ’ ne ar- criminals , a nd s tude nts ; a nd he
note s s ignificant diffe re nce s a mong the m, bo th in conte nt and in expression:
‘while the criminals speak with a pe culiar intona tio n, the s tude nts or othe r
culture d pe ople s peak normally^ (1972, 26). T he re is continuity be twe e n
language a nd antilanguage * jus t as the re is continuity be twe e n society and
172 Language and social structure

antis ocie ty. Bu t there is als o te ns ion be twe e n the m, re fle cting the fact that
they are va r ia m s o f one and the same unde r lying s e miotic. T he y may express
diffe r e nt s ocial s tructures : but the y are par t a n d parce l o f the same social
system.
A n antilanguage is the me a ns o f r e alization o f a s ubje ctive re ality: not
me re ly ex pressing it* but actively cr e ating and ma inta ining it. In this respect,
it is jus t anothe r language . But the re ality is a counte r- re ality, and this has
ce rtain s pe cial implications . It implie s the for e gr ounding o f the s ocial s truc­
ture and social hie rarchy. It implie s a pr e oc cupation with the de finition and
defence of ide ntity thr ough the ritual func tioning o f the social hierarchy. It
implie s a speciaJ conce ption o f infor mation a nd o f knowle dge . (T his is where
the secrecy come s in: the language is secret because the re ality is secret.
Aga in there is a counte r par t in individual ve rbal be haviour, in the te chni­
que s of infor mation contr ol practis e d by individuals having s ome thing to
hide which the y do not want divulge d; cf- Go ffm a n ’s (1 9 6 3) s tudy o f
s tigma.) An d it implie s that social me anings will be seen as oppos itions :
values will be de fine d by what they are n o t like time a nd space in the
Looking- Glas s worJd (whe re one lives backwards , a nd things get far the r
away the more one walks towards them)*
Le t me e nume r ate here s ome of the fe ature s o f the Ca lc utt a unde r world
language de s cribe d by Ma llik. Ma llik states that it is ‘a full and comple te
language , though mixe d and artificial to some e x te nt1 (7 3 ); it is ‘primar ily
Be ngali in which s trains o f Hin d i infiUration ar e dis ce mable (6 2). He
considers that the language has its owti phonology and morphology, which
could and s hould be de scribe d in the ir own te rms . But these can als o be
inte rpre te d in te rms of var iation within Be ngali, and Ma llik relates the
unde r world forms to s tandard Be nga li whe re ve r he can.
In phonology, Ma llik dis tinguis he s some thirty diffe r e nt processes: for
e xample me tathe s is (e ,g, kod&n *shop\ fr om dok&n\ k arca 4servant*, from
c ak ar). back for mation (e .g. k hum *m o uth' fr om m u k h ), cons onantal
change (e .g. k ona ‘go ld from s ona)^ s yllabic ins e rtion (e .g. b ituri ‘old
woman\ fromf>uri) a nd var iation involving s ingle features* s uch as nas ality,
ce re bral ar ticulation o r as piration. Ma ny words, natur ally, have more than
one such proce ss in the ir de r iva tion (c .g .c h ap p i 4buttoc k fro m pach\ aske
‘e y e s ' fr om ak s i; m ok ra ‘jo k e fr om m as k ara).
In mor phology also> Ma llik ide ntifie s a numbe r o f de r ivational processes:
for exampEe s uffixing (e.g. k otni ‘cotton bag ’ from Englis h c o tto n; dharan
1cidnapper\ fr om d hm a 'h o ld '); c o mpounding (e.g. bilak hana ‘br othe l ,
from bifa' general de rogatory te rm, + kh^n& *- o r ium place for '); s im­
plifying; shift o f word class; le xical bor r owing (e .g. k halas ‘mur de r from
A rabic x alas ‘e n d ’ re placing A : A g a i n , we find various combina tions o f
these processes; and very ma ny ins tance s that are capable o f more than one
e xplanation.
A ll these e xample s are variants , in the sense in which the te rm is used in
variation the ory (Ce de r gr e n and D. Sankoff 1974; G. Sa nko ff 1974). Labov
(1 9 6 9) de fine s a set o f variants as ‘alte rnative ways o f “ s aying the s ame
 Antilanguage s 173

thing ” ’ (his quota tion mar ks ); and while the pr inciple be hind var iation is
much more comple x tha n this innoce nt- s ounding de finition implie s , il is true
that, in the mos t ge ne ral te rms , we can inte rpre t a var iant as an alte rnative
r e alization o f an e le me nt o n the ne xt, or on s ome > highe r s tratum. So, for
e xample , k o dan a nd do k an ar« variants (alte r native phonological real-
izaiions ) o f the same w ord *shop\ Similar ly k o tni a nd its s tandar d Be ngali
e quivale nt are variants (alte r native le x icogrammatical re alizations ) of the
s am e m e aning 'cotton bag\ As s uming the s e mantic s tratum to be the highest
within the linguis tic sys te m all sets o f variants have the prope rty o f be ing
ide ntical s e mantically; s om e have the prope rty o f be ing ide ntical lexico-
grammatically as we ll:

s e mantic *cotton bag

le x icogr ammatical

phonologic al dokSn Icodan kotni bas ta

Now the s ignificant thing about the ite ms tha t are phonologically or
mor phologically dis tinctive in the unde r wor ld language is that many of the m
are not in fact* variants at aJl; the y have no s e mantic e quivale nt in s tandard
Be ngali. T his does not me an the y cannot be translate d into s tandard Be ngali
(o r s tandard Englis h, or s tandard anything else): they can. But the y d o not
function as c ade d e le me nts in the s e mantic system o f the everyday language .
He r e are some e xample s fr om Ma llik :

Ite m De finitio n S ource

ghot ‘to s wallow a stolen thing dhok "swallow

to avoid de te ction
logam ‘the ft in a moving goods mat g^rl *goods tr ain
tr a in’
okhr an ‘one who helps the chie f opr ano ‘up r o o t
ope rator in s te aling fr om a
goods tr a in
bha ppar ^outside dis turbance at the bhir bhappa r ‘crowd,
time o f a the ft’
ulti ‘unde r wor ld language 1 ulat ‘turn down*
cuicru ‘kidnappe r o f a s le e ping c h iW cori ‘theft*
bil^hala t ‘s e rious condition o f a victim bilS ‘que e r , halat
in an as s ault’ ‘condition* (Hin d i)
174 Language and social s tructure

Ite m De finitio n S ource

bidhob^ ‘boy without girlfrie nd* bidhoba 'w idow '

r utiha "to share bre ad secretly with ru^i ‘br e a d’
a convict de ta ine d in a
pris on1
basta 'pe rs on promis e d e mployme nt bas ta ‘sack’
but che ate d"
pancabaj 'one who leaves victim at panca ‘five ’
crossroads a fle r a s natch’ baj ‘e xpe rt’
paune- atta "boy pros titute ' paune - a(ts *seven and
three quarte rs ’
kham ‘thigh o f a girl. thSm ‘p illa r ’
guana "hidde n cavity ins ide the thr oat gahan ‘s ecret’
to hide s tole n goods ’
nicu- cdkkd ‘pick pocke ts by s tanding on nicu ‘low’ cakd
footboar d o f train o r bus ’ whe e l

Inte r me diate be twe e n these and the s traightforward variants are nume r ­
ous me taphor ical expressions of the type that w ould mos t re adily be thought
of as typical of inne r city gangla nd speech* such as:

Item Oe fim tio n S ource

s ainbord- ola ‘mar rie d w o m a n’ (re fe re nce to ve r milion

mar k on for e he ad o f
mar rie d w oma n; old
‘owne r ’
kaca- kald 'young girl 'unr ipe , b a na na 1
sardi- khasi ‘note s a n d coins ' ‘cold, c o ug h (re fe re nce
to nois es made )
cok*khal ‘s pectacle s ’ *eye, pocke t1
atap ‘widow* ‘s unbake d (fr om atap
c31 ^s unbake d rice
e ate n by widows )
hunk 含 ‘cas ual (clie nt of por tma nte au o f th unko
pros titute)* ‘fragile*, th&uko
‘small- scale’ retail"
<Jabal- dek?ir 4plum p woman. Englis h double decker
 Antila ngua ge s 175

cha mia gir l mSch 'fish* (reversed

to cham; + suffix - i
+ suffix —a)
SU t S cigare tte ’ s ukh ‘happine s s ’ tan
*puff
aeri- mara Im p o t e n t hra *testicles\ mar s
^strike; de ad’
obliisar- ae na "seductive eyes' abhis ^r 'trys t7,
'mir r o r 1

and so on, T homas Ha r ma n's account o f the Eliza be than pe lting s peech
contains many s imila r e xample s : crasfiing- cheats 'te e th' {cheat = ge ne ral
e le me nt for "thing which - ' ) ; smeUing- ckeat *nose\ also *garde n, or chard';
belly- cheat 'apron*; Rome - booze swi ne *; s tailings k e n *house tha t will receive
s tole n ware* (s tall ‘make or ordain* i.e . ‘or de r ke n "hous e '); queer- ken
‘prison- hous e’ (que e r 'no ug ht1, i.e. = ge ne ral de rogator y e le me nt, cf.
Be ngali biia)\ dark m ans ‘nig ht que e r cuffin "Justice o f the Peace*.
T he re is no way o f de ciding whe the r s uch me taphor ical re pre s e niations
‘have the same me aning’ as everyday forms or not, i.e. whe the r the y are or
are not variants in La b o v’s de finition. (T o say "same de nota tion, diffe r e nt
c o nno ta tio n is me re ly to avoid de ciding; it me ans ‘b o ih yes a nd n o / ) Nor is
the re any ne e d to de cide . We can call the m all "me taphor ical var iants 1, since
it is he lpful to re late the m to var iation the or y; what is mos t impor tant is the
fact lhat they are me taphor ical. It is this me taphor ical characte r that de fine s
(he antilanguage . An anttJanguage is a me taphor for an e ve ryday language ;
and this me taphor ical qua lity appe ars all the way up and down the system.
T he re are phonological me taphors , gr ammatical me taphor s - m o r ­
phological, lexical and pe rhaps s yntactic —and s e mantic me taphor s ; some o f
these are set out in table 4 (b ut note that this \ sno( a comple te lis ting of the
types that are to be fo u n d ).
As we have pointe d out alre ady, many ins tance s can be inte rpr e te d in
more than one way, and many are comple x me taphor s , involving variation at
more than one level.
By inte r pr e ting the total phe nome non in te rms o f me taphor we can relate
the s e mantic variants to the rest o f the picture . T he notion o t a s e mantic
var iant is appar e ntly contr adictor y: how can two tilings be variants Chavc
the same me aning ’ if the ir me anings are diffe re nt? But this is the wrong way
o f looking at it. T he antis ocie ty is in te rms of Levi- Strauss^s dis tinction
be twe e n me ta phor a nd me tonymy, me tonymic to society ^ it is an e xte ns ion
o f it, within the social system; while its re alizations are (pr e dictably)
me taphor ical, a nd this applie s bo th to its r e alization in social s tructure and to
its re alization in language (Le vi^Straus s 1966, ch. 7). The antis ocie ty is in its
s tructure , a me taphor for the society; the two come toge the r at ihe level of
the s ocial system. In the same way the antilanguage is a me taphor for the
Tublv 4 Typ^ s of metaphor

phonologicaJ: alternation 5 0 n S m konff goW

rne tathe s is khum 元 mukh 'mouth'

r
morphological suffixatiOh kcf(/v. l/<o(an 'cotton' + i) - bag'
compounding bitskhsn^f ( queer* + 'house*) ^ 'brothel*

grammatical ^ lexical: alternation bi/ti { 'cat*) - prostitute1

syntactic; expansion chappar kh^fowmiokstfo 'hide' {cf. Engl

bing a waste 'depart')

gh6t ( swallow stolen object )

semantic: nicu- cSkkff ('pick pockets from
footboard of tram') ?
 Antilanguage s 177

language , a nd the two come toge the r at the level of the s ocial s e miotic. So
there is no great difficulty in as s imilating the 's e cond life* s ocial hie rarchy to
existing inte r nalize d re pre s e ntations o f social s tructure ; nor in as s imilating
conce pts like ‘hidde n cavity ins ide the throat to re ceive s tole n goods\ o r ‘to
share bre ad secretly with a convict to the e xis ting s e miotic that is re alize d
thr ough the language . Se mantic variants ‘come toge the r' (i- e. are inte r ­
pre table ) at the highe r level, that o f the cultur e as an info r m a t io n system.
T he phe nome non o f me ta phor its e lf is, o f cours e, no t an 'antiLinguis tic1
one ; me taphor is a fe atur e o f language s , not jus t antilanguage s (a lthough
one could express the s ame point anothe r way by s aying that me taphor
cons titute s the e le me nt o f antilanguage that is pre s e nt in aU Languges). Muc h
of e ve ryday language is me taphor ical in or igin, though the origins are ofte n
forgotte n, or unknown. Wha t dis tingu isKes an anti Language is that it is itse lf
a me taphor ical e ntity and he nce me taphor ical mode s o f e xpre s s ion are the
nor m; we s hould ex pect me taphor ical c ompounding, me tathe s e s , rhyming
alte rnations a nd the like to be a m o ng its r e gular patte rns o f r e alization.
We know much less about its mode s o f me aning its s e mantic styles.
Ha r ma n gives a dialogue in Eliza be tha n antilanguage , b ut it is almos t
ce rtainly one he has made up hims e lf to illus trate the use of the words in his
glossary (1567, 148—50)* Ma llik include s no dia logue , although he doe s
quote a numbe r of comple te sentences, which are very he lpful (1 9 7 2 ,8 3 - 4 .
109- 10). It is not at all easy to re cord s pontane ous conve rs ation (e s pe cially
in an antitanguage !). But, as Be r ge r a nd Luc kma nn rightly point out, the
reality- generating powe r o f language lie s in conve r s a tion; furthe r more it is
cumulative , and de pe nds for its e ffe ctive ne s s on continuous r e inforce me nt
in inte raction. T o be able to inte r pr e t the re al s ignificance o f an anti-
language , we ne e d to have access to its conve rs ational patte rns : texts wiU
have to be collected, and e d ite d and s ubje cte d to an exegesis that relates
the m to the se mantic system and the social conte xt. Only in this way can we
hope to gain ins ight into the characte rology (t o use a Prague School te rm) of
an antilanguage —the me aning style s a nd cod ing or ie mations t hat e mbody its
characteris tic caunte r c ultur al ve rs ion of the s ocial system.
Me an'while , the easiest way in to an antilanguage is pr obably through
anothe r class of language s that we could call ‘music- hall language s ' (or , in
Ame r ican, Vaude ville language s ). It is worth s pe culating (b u i s pe culation is
no subs titute for finding o ut) whe the r Gobble dygook - in its original sense
as a ‘secret language* of Vic tor ia n working class hum o ur , not its me taphor-
icaJ sense as the language o f bure aucrats —is, in or igin, a de s ce ndant o f the
Eliza be than antilanguage , with its te e th dr awn once the social conditions in
which the antilanguage e me rge d and flour is he d had ceased to exist.
Gobble dy gook has s ome dis tinctive ly antilaaguage fe ature s : one br ie f
e x a m p le ^r e c r i^ a lux urim o le flack oblors ‘e re ct a luxurious block o f flats 1,
contains metathesis^ s uffix at ion a nd c o m po unding with a c ommon mor ph -
all totally vacuous , hence the comic effe ct. T he banne r o f Go bble dy g o o k
was borne aloft (a nd raised to s e mantic he ights ) in Engla nd in the 1950s by
Spike Milligan, w ho cr e ate d an antilanguage o f his own —a ‘kind o f me ntal
178 Language and s ocial s tructure

s laps tick', in the words o f H R H The Prince o f Wale s - known as Goone r y .

He r e is a s pe cime n o f conve rs ation {Milliga n, 1973):
Quartermess : Listen, someone's screaming in agony —fortunately I speak i\
fluently.
W iilium . Oh sir. Ohh me krills are plumed.
Quartertness Se r ge ant Fe r tangg, w h a t ’s u p ? Yo u r boo is have gone grey with
worry.
WiUium I was ins ide the thing, p ic k in ’ up pr e his tor ic fag- ends , whe n I
spots a creature crawling up the wall. It was a weasel, suddenly
it went . . .
f sourt d effects) PO P
Quartermess: What a strange and horrible death.
WiUium T h e n I he ar s a ’is s ing s o und and a voice say . , . *mmardor*
Quartermess: Minardor? We must keep our ears, nose and throat open for
anything thai goes Minardor.
Henry Be for e w a r ne d Sir* the Min a r d o r is a n ancie nt wor d, tha t can be
r e a d in the We s t o f Minis te r s Libr a r y.
Quartermess It so happens I have Westminster Library or me and. Gad, took
there I am inside examining an occult dictionary.
(sound effects) T H U M B I N G PA GES
B u t whe n we re ach this point, it is high time to ask: why the intere st in
antilanguage s ? T he y are e nte r taining; but have the y any impor tance , or are
they jus t colle ctors ’ pie ce s ? I th in k if we take the m s eriously - though not
s ole mnly! - the re are tw o ways in which antilanguage s ar e of s ignificance for
the unde r s tanding o f the s ocial s e miotic.

1 In the first place , the phe no me no n o f the antilanguage thr ows light on
the diffic ult conce pt of s ocial diale ct, by pr o viding an oppos ite pole , the
s e cond o f two ide alize d e xtre me s to which we c a n re late the facts as we
actually find the m.
Le i us pos tulate an ide ally homoge nous society, with no divis ion of
labour , or at le as t no form o f social hierarchy^ whose me mbe r s (the re fore )
s pe ak an ide ally homoge ne ous language , w ithout diale ctal var iation. T he re
pr obably ne ve r has be e n s uch a hum a n gr oup, but that doe s not matte r ; this
is an ide al cons truct s e rving as a thes is for de ductive ar gume nt. A t the othe r
e nd o f the scaJe we pos tulate an ide ally dic hotomize d society, cons is ting of
two dis tinct and mutua lly hos tile groups , society and antis ocie ty; the m e m ­
bers o f these s pe ak two totally dis tinct tongue s a language and an anti*
language . Ag a in , the re has pr obably ne ve r be e n s uch a thing - it r e minds us
o f the E lo i and rhe Mor locks imag ine d by H. G. We lls in T he tim e m achine .
But it serves as the antithe s is , the ide alize d oppos ite pole.
Wh a t we do find Ln r e al life are type s o f s ociolinguis tic orde r tha t aTe
inte rpre table as lying s ome whe re along this cline . T he dis tinction be twe e n
s tandard and nons ta ndar d diale cts is one o f language versus antilanguage ,
although t a k ing a r e lative ly be nign and mode r a te for m. P o pula r usage
oppos e s as ‘anti- * to (s tandard) language , as the e s tablis he d nor m, A
 An t il an guage s 179

nons ta ndar d diale ct that is cons cious ly used for strategic purpos e s , de fe n­
s ive ly to ma inta in a particular s ocial re ality or offe ns ive ly for resistance and
protest, lies furthe r in the dir e ction o f an antilangua ge ; this is what we know
as a ‘ghe tto language 9 (cf- Koc hma n's (1 9 7 2 ) account o f Bla c k Englis h in the
Unit e d States ).
,language4

Nteoliz«d
antithna>
Ssociolingui 镝 ic
order sp>Ut
into two)

'a n tila n g iia g e '

Fig. 10 Typas of sociolinguistk; order

Social diale cts are no t necessariJy as s ociate d with caste or class; they may be
religious* ge ne r ational, sexual, e c onomic (ur ba n/ r ur a l) a nd pe rhaps othe r
things too. Wha t dis tinguis he s the m is the ir hie rarchical characte r. The
socia] function o f diale ct var iation is to express, s ymbolize a nd maintain
the social or de r ; atid the s ocial or de r is an es s e ntially hie rarchic one . An
antilanguage is at one and the same time , both the limiting case of
a social diale ct (and hence the Tealization o f one compone nt in the hier*
archy of a wide r s ociai or de r tha t include s both society a nd antis ocie ty),
and a language (and he nce the r e alization o f a s ocial orde r that is con­
s titute d by the antis ocie ty itse jf); in *the latte r role , it e mbodie s its own
hie rarchy, and so dis plays inte rnal var iation o f a s ys te matic kind - MaUik,
for e x ample refers xo the diffe re nt groups e xis ting within the antis ocie ty,
each with its own s ocial s tatus a nd e ach having its own dis tinctive speech
forms (29- 9).
T he perspective o f the antilanguage is one in which we can clearly see the
me aning o f var iability in language : in brie f, the function o f alte rnative
language is to create alte rnative re ality. A s ocial diale ct is the e mbodime nt
of a mildly but dis tinctly diffe r e nt world vie w - one which is the re fore
pote ntially thr e ate ning, if it doe s not coincide with one ’s own. T his is
undoubte dly the e x pla nation of the viole nt attitude s to nons ta ndar d speech
commonly he ld by s pe ake rs of a s tandard diale ct: the cons cious m o t if o f ‘I
don’t like the ir vowe ls ’ s ymbolize s an unde r lying m o t if o f ‘I do n't like the ir
value s .T he s ignificance for the s ocial s e miotic, o f the kind o f var iation i/i ihe
linguis tic system that we caVKs ocial dia le c t be come s very much cle are r whe n
we take into account the nature and functions o f antilanguage s .
180 Language and social structure

2 In the s econd place , ihe re is antiianguage astex i, A ce ntral pr oble m for

linguistics is tha t o f re lating text to system, and o f re lating mode s of text
de s cription that are applicable to conve rs ation (Mitc he ll 1957; Sacks e r al.
1974) to a the ory o f the linguis tic s yste m. I have be e n s ugge sting, for
e xample in chapte r 7 that this pr oble m can be us e fully appr oache d through
a functional inte r pr e tation o fth e s e mantic system, an inte r pr e tation in terms
o f its m a jo r func tiona l compone nts which are re latable (i) to the text, as an
ongoing process o f s e le ction in me a ning; (ii) to the linguis tic s ystem; and (iii)
to the s ituation as a s e miotic cons truct de rivable fr om the "social s e miotic'
(the cultur e cons ide re d as an infor ma tio n system). It is be yond the scope o f
the dis cus s ion to de ve lop this fur the r he re ; but one point may be ma de which
emerges- s pe cifically with re fe re nce to the de s cription o f antilanguage s .
Conve r s ation as Be r ge r a n d Luc kma nn point o ut, de pe nds for its
re ality- ge ne rating powe r o n be ing cas ual; that is to say, \ ttypically make s use
of highly code d areas o f the system to produce r m 't h a t is c ongrue nl - though
once coding a nd congrue nce have be e n e s tablis he d as the no r m it can
tole rate a nd inde e d thrive s on a re as onable qua ntity of matte r that is
incon^r ue nr or uncode d. *Une e de d' me ans *not {ye t) fully incorpor ate d into
the s yste m ^ncongr ue nt" me ans "not expres s ed thr ough the mos t typical
(and highly code d) fo r m o f r e pr e s e ntation'; a nd b o th conce pts a re o f a ^ o r e
or less’ kind, not ‘all or no thing . Now, ce r tain type s of social conte xt
typically e nge nde r text in which the coding process, and the congrue nce
r e lation te nd to be for e gr ounde d and br ought unde r atte ntion. An e xample
is the language o f young childre n (and o f othe rs inte racting with the m), since
childre n are s imultane ous ly bo th inte racting a nd cons tructing the system
that unde r lie s the te xt.
Ot h e r e xample s are provide d by ve rbal conte s t and display. He r e the
for e gr ounding is not a sign of the system coming into be ing, but an e ffe ct o f
the par ticular func tiona l or ie nta tion within the system, a nd the special
features that arise in a conte xt whe re a s pe ake r is us ing language jus t irt or de r
to secure for hims e lf the re wards tha t accrue to prowe ss in the use o f
language .
An antilanguage has s ome thing o f both the s e e le me nts in it. Anti-
language s are typically us e d for conte s t and dis play, with cons e que nt for e ­
gr ounding o f inte rpe r s onal e le me nts o f all kinds . A t the same time , the
speakers o f an antilanguage are cons tantly s triving to ma inta in a counter-
re ality that is unde r pressure fr om the e s tablis he d world. T his is why the
language is cons tantly re ne wing it s e lf- t o s ustain the vitality Chat it ne e ds if it
is to func tion at all. Such is the mos t like ly e x pla nation o f the r apid turnove r
o f words and mode s of e xpre s s ion tha t is always re marke d on by c o m ­
me ntator s on unde r w or ld language . Bu t the re is more t o it tha n that. Wit hin
the e xpe rie ntial mode o f me a ning, an antilanguage may take into itse lf -
may e ncode at the s e mantic level - s tructure s and collocations that are
s e lfcons cious ly oppos e d to the norms o f the e s tablis he d language . T his can
be seen cle arly in texts m che more inte lle ctual antilanguage s s uch as thos e o f
mys ticis m (and cf. some o fth e Es che r 4ike s e mantic sleights o f Goone r y, e.g.
 Antilanguage s 181

I hav e Wes tminste r L ib rary on m e and. Gad , lo o k there / am ins ide )• But it is
almos t ce r tainly pre s e nt atso in the typical conve rs ation of the unde r wor ld
and the 's e cond life\
T he result is that conve rs ation in an antilanguage is like ly to dis play in
s harpe r outline the s ys te matic re lations be twe e n the te xt and ihe linguis tic
system. The mode s o f e xpre s s ion o f the antilanguage , whe n seen from the
s tandpoint o f the e s tablis he d language , appe ar o b liq ue diffuse,, me ta phor ­
ical; and so they are , fro m that angle . B u t s e e n in the ir o w n te rms , they
appe ar dire cte d as powe r ful manife s tations of the linguis tic system in the
service o f the cons truction of re ality. It is the re ality that is oblique , since we
see it as a me taphor ical tr ans for mation of the ‘tr ue ' re ality; b u t the function
of the text with respect to tha t re ality is a re infor cingone ^ all the more dire ct
be cause it is a re ality which ne e ds more re infor ce me nt.

An antila n^ua ge is not s ome thing that we shall always be able 10 re cognize
by ins pe ction o f a text. It is like ly to be characte rize d by s ome or all o f the
various fe ature s me ntione d, a nd hence to be re cognizable by its pho nolog­
ical or le x icogrammatical s hape as a me taphor ic alte r nant to the everyday
language . But in the last resort these fe ature s are not necessary to an
antilangua ge . We have inte r pr e te d antHanguage as the lim iting case o f social
diale ct, and thi& is a valid pe rs pe ctive ; but it is an extre me , not a typical case
because it is not primarily de fine d by va r ia tion - or, rathe r, the var iation by
which it could be de fine d w ould be var iation in a special sense. A social
diale ct is a clus te r o f as s ociate d variants - that is, a systematic patte rn of
te nde ncie s in the se le ction of value s o f phonological and le xicogrammatical
variable s unde r s pe cifie d conditions . Atte nt io n is on var iation rathe r than on
the me anings that are e xchange d. An antilangtiage , while it may dis play such
variation* is to be de fine d, on the othe r h a n d as a systematic patte rn of
te nde ncie s in the s e le ction of me anings to be e xchange d. (We le ft ope n the
que s tion whe the r or no t this could be br ought unde r the rubric of var iation.)
In this respect, the re fore , it is more like Be r ns te in's (1 9 74 ) conce pt o f a
code or co ding or ie nta iion, A code may be de fine d jus t in this way; as a
s ys te matic patte rn o f te nde ncie s in the s e le ction o f me anings to be
e xchange d unde r s pe cifie d conditions . (Note that the ‘s pe cifie d c onditions ’
are in the s ociolinguis tic e nvir onme nt. T he y may be social o r linguis tic, the
te nde ncy be ing, natur ally, that the highe r the level of the var iation, the more
like ly it is that the re le vant conte xt w ill be social r athe r than linguis tic. He nce
in the de finition o f code we co uld say in s pe cifie d social conte xts '.) So now
we can inte rpre t an antilanguage as the limiting case o f a code . Ag a m it is an
e xtre me not a typical cas e but this time for a diffe r e nt re as on: be caus e the
s ubje ctive re ality that is re alize d by it is a cons cious counte r- re ality, not jus t
a s ubcultur al variant of’ or angle o n a re ality tha t is acce pte d by aH. Still this
is a re lative matte r: an antilanguage is not a clearly dis tinct cate gory - it is a
cate gory to which any give n ins tance appr oximate s more or less.
An antilanguage o f the kind pre s e nte d a t the start brings into s harp re lie f
the role o f language as a r e alization o f Ihe powe r s tructure o f society. The
182 Language and s ocial s tructure

amiZanguage s o f pris on a nd cr iminal counte r cultur e s ar e the mos t cle arly

de fine d be cause ihe y have s pe cific refe rence to alte rnative s ocial s tructure s ,
as weJl as the additiona l attr ibute s o f secret language s a nd profe s s ional
jar gons ; and he nce they ate full o f ove rt marke rs o f the ir antilanguage
status. T he oblique ne s s o f me a ning a nd fo r m that make s the m so e ffe ctive as
be are rs o f an alte rnative re ality also make s the m inhe r e ntly comic - so
re fle cting anothe r aspect o f the s ame re ality, as seen by its s peakers. In any
case not all antilanguage s are language s o f social re sis tance and protest. T he
"arcane languages* o f sorcery a nd mys ticis m are o f the s ame orde r (he nce
some o f Cas tane da’s (1 9 71 ) difficultie s in unde r s tanding Do n Jua n). An
antilanguage may be "high as we ll as ‘low’ on the dtglossic s pe ctrum. T he
language s o f lite r atur e are in a ce rtain sense antilanguage s - o r rathe r,
lite r atur e is both language a nd antilanguage at the same time . It is typical o f
a poe tic ge nre that one or othe r mode o f me a ning js fore grounde d. A t time s
the effect come s dos e to tha t o f an antilanguage in the s ocial sense, for
e xample in compe titive genres s uch as the Eliza be tha n s onne t; at othe r
time s the ge ncric mode has little or no th ing o f the antilanguage about it,
le aving the individual poe t fre e t o impar t his own s ubje ctive re ality, if he so
wishes* by cr e ating an antilanguage o f his own, (A n d the liste ner, o r reader,
is free to inte rpre t the text as antilanguage Mhe so wis he s .) T he antilinguis tic
aspect o f lite rature is s ome time s we ll to the fore ; at othe r time s and places it
recedes into ins ignificance . A wor k of lite rature is its author 's contr ibution
to the re ality- ge ne rating conve rs ation o f society - irre spective of whe the r i(
offe rs an alte rnative re ality or re inforces the re ce ive d mode l - and its
language re fle cts this status that it has in the s ocios e miotic scheme. But that
is anothe r topic.
/.
An interpretation of the functional
relationship between language and
social structure
In this chapte r I s hall s ummarize what has be e n s aid or implie d e ar lie r about
how language expresses Ihe social system. In the cours e o f the discussion I
s hall move towards the view that t he re] ation o f language to the social system
is not s imply one of e xpre s s ion, but a more comple x natur al diale ctic in
which language active ly s ymbolize s the social system, thus cr e ating as we ll as
be ing cre ate d by it. T his it is hope d, will clarify my inte r pr e tation o f
language within the fr ame wor k o f the cultur e as an infor mation system, and
give some indication o f what I unde r s tand by the conce pt o f la ng ua g e as
social s e miotic ’
As an unde r lying conce ptual frame wor k, I s hall dis tinguis h be twe e n (i)
language as system and (ii) language as ins titution. T he s alie nt facts about
language system are (a) that it is s tratifie d (it is a three- level coding system
cons is ting o f a s emantics, a le x icogrammar a nd a phonology) and (b ) that its
s e mantic system is or ganize d into ju n c tio n al co mpo ne nts (ide a tiona l, inc lud­
ing e xpe rie ntial a nd logical; inte r pe r s onal; te xtual). T he s alie nt fact about
language as ins titution is that it is v ariable ; there are two kinds of var iation,
(a) diale ct (variation according to the user)^ a nd (b ) register (va r iation
accor ding to the us e ). T his is, of cours e , an ide alize d cons truct; there are no
s uch clcarcut boundar ie s in the facts the ms e lve s .

1 L anguage as institutloii
2,1 Diale ct
Clas s ical diale ctology, as de ve lope d in Eur ope , rests on ce r tain implicit
as s umptions about s pe ake rs and s pe e ch communitie s . A s peech community
is as s ume d to be a s ocial unit whose me mbe r s (i) communica te with e ach
othe r , (ii) s pe ak in a cons is te nt way a n d (iii) all s pe ak alike . T his is obvious ly,
again an ide alize d pictur e ; but in the type of s e ttle d rur al c o mmunity for
which diale ct studie s we re firs t de ve lope d, it is ne ar e nough re ality to serve
as a the ore tical nor m.
Dia le c ta l va r ia tion in s uch a mode l, is e s s e ntially var iation between
s peech communitie s . We may re cognize s ome var iation als o within the
c ommunity - s quire and parson,, or la ndlo r d a nd pries t, pr oba bly s pe ak
diffe re ntly from othe r pe opJe - but this is at the mos t a m in o r the me ; a nd we
do not envisage var iation as s ome thing tha t arises w ithin the s peech o f an
individual speaker.
184 Language and s ocial s tructure

Whe n diale ctology move d into an urban s e tting with La b o v’s monu*
me ntal Ne w Yo r k city studies, var iation to o k o n a ne w me aning. Labov
s howe d that, within a typical Nor th Ame r ica n ur ban c ommunity, the speech
varies (i) between ihe me mbe rs according to s ocial class (low to high), and
(ii) w ithin e ach me mbe r accor ding to "style scale (a mo unt o f monitor ing or
atte ntion paid to one*s o w n speech, cas ual to formal)* The effect o f e ach of
these factors is quantitative (he nce probabilis tic in or igin), b ut the picture is
clear: whe n single diale ct variable s are is olate d for inte ns ive inve s tigation,
some o f the m tur n out to be s ocially s tratifie d. The for ms o f the variable
( ‘var iants ) are rank e d in an orde r s uch tha t the ‘high’ var iant is as sociated
wiih highe r s ocial s tatus o r a more for mal conte xt of s peech, and the lo w '
with lowe r social status o r a more cas ual conte xt o f s peech.

L 2 S oc ial d iale d
As long as diale ct va r ia tion is ge ogr aphically de te r mine d, it ca n be e xplaine d
away: one gr oup stays on this side o f the m o u n t a in the othe r gr oup move s to
the othe r side o f the mounta in, and the y no longe r talk to e ach othe r . But
the re are no mounta ins divid ing s ocial classes; the me mbe r s o f diffe r e nl
social classes do talk to e ach other* at least trans actionally. Wh a t is the
e x planation o f this s ocially de te r mine d va r ia tion? How do ‘s ocial diale cts ’
arise?
One o f the mos t s ignificant o f La bo v’s findings was the r e markable
unifo r mity s hown by pe ople of all s ocial groups in the ir attutude s towards
variation in the speech o f others* T his unifor mity o f attitude me ans that the
me mbe rs are highly se as itive to the s ocial me a ning o f diale ctal var iation, a
for m o f s e ns itivity that is appare ntly achie ve d dur ing the cr ucial years of
adole sce nce, in the age range about 13- 18.
We acquire this s e ns itivity as a part of growing u p in society, because
diale ct var iation is functional with respect to the s ocial structure . An d this is
why it doe s not dis appe ar. It was confide ntly pre dicte d in the pe r iod after
Wo r ld Wa r II that, with the s te adily incre as ing domina nce o f the mass
me dia, diale cts would dis appe ar and we s hould s oon all be s pe aking alike .
Sure enough> the re gionally ba&ed diale cts o f rural a r e a s d is a p p e a r in g ^ as
least in indus tr ial societies. B u t with the ur ban diale cts the oppos ite has
happe ne d: dive rs ity Ls incre as ing. We can e x pla in this by s howing that the
diversity is socially func tiona l. It expresses the s tructure o f society.
It w ould be a mis take to think o f social s tructure s imply in te rms of some
particuJar inde x of s ocial class. T he e s s e ntial characte ris tic o f social structure
as we know it is that it is hie rarchical; a nd linguis tic v a na iio n is what
expresses its hie rarchical characte r whe the r int e r m s o fa g e , ge ne r ation, sex,
prove nance or any othe r o f its manife s tations , inc lud ing caste a nd class.
Le t us pos tulate a pe rfe ctly homoge ne ous society, one w ithout any of
these forms o f social hie rarchy. T he me mbe r s o f s uch a s ocie ty would
pre s umably s pe ak a pe rfe ctly homoge ne ous language , one without any
diale ctal var iation. Now cons ide r the hypothe tical antithe s is o f this: a society
split into two conflic ting groups , a society and an antis ocie ty. He r e we shall
 Language and social s tructure 185

expect lo find s ome for m o f matching linguis tic orde r: tw o mutually oppos e d
lingus tic varie lies , a language and an antilanguage . These are, once again,
ide alize d cons tructs ; but phe nome na appr o x imating to the m have arisen at
various time s and pi aces. For e xample , the s ocial conditions of sixteenth-
ce ntury Eng la nd ge ne r ate d an antis ocie ty o f ‘vagabonds ’ who live d by
e xtorting we alth fr om the e s tablis he d s ociety; and this society had its anti-
language^ fragme nts o f which are re porte d in conte mpor ar y docume nts . The
antilanguage is a language of s ocial conflict - of passive resistance or active
oppos ition; but at the s ame time , like any othe r language it is a me ans of
expressing and m a inta ining the s ocia ls tr uctur e - in this case the s tructure of
the aniis ocie ty.
Mos t o f the time what we find in real life are diale ct hie rarchie s , patte rns
of diale ctal var iation in which a ‘s tandar d’ (r e pre s e nting the powe r base of
s ocie ty) is oppos e d by nons tandar d varie tie s (which the me mbe rs refer to as
‘diale cts ). The nons tandar d diale cts may be come language s o f oppos ition
and prote s t; pe r iods o f e xplicit class conflict te nd to be characte rize d by the
de ve lopme nt o f s uch protest language s , s ome time s in the for m o f 'ghe tto
language s which are coming clos er to the antilanguage e nd of the scale.
He r e diale ct be come s a me a ns of e xpre s s ion o f da s s cons cious ne ss and
political awareness* We can re cognize a cate gory of ‘oppre s s e d language s ',
language s of groups tha t are s ubje cte d to s ocial o r political oppre s s ion. It is
characte ris tic o f oppre s s e d language s that the ir s peakers te nd to excel at
verba! contes t and ve rbal dis play. Me a ning is ofte n the mos t effective form
o f social action that is available to the m.

1.3 Register
Diale cts , in the us ual sense o f that te rm, ar e diffe r e nt ways of s aying the
same thing. In othe r words the diale cts of a language diffe r fr om e ach othe r
phonologically and le xicogrammaticalJyTbut not, in principle , s e mantically.
In this respect, diale ctal var iation contras ts with variation o f anothe r kind,
that o f register. Re gis te rs are ways o f s aying diffe r e nt things .
Re gis te rs diffe r s e mantically. T he y als o diffe r le xicogrammatically.
because that is how me anings are ex pressed', b ut le xicogrammaticaJ dif­
ferences a mong registers are , by and large , tlie automatic cons e que nce of
s e mantic differences. In principle , registers are configur ations o f me anings
that are typically e xchange d - that are "at risk’ so to s peak - unde r given
conditions o f use.
A diale ct is ‘what you s pe ak (ha b itua lly ); this is de te r mine d by 'who you
are\ your re gional and/or social piace o f or igin and/or a doption. A register is
‘what you are s pe aking' (a t the give n time ), de te r mine d by *whai you are
d o ing the nature of the ongoing s ocial activity. Whe reas dia le c t variation
reflects the social orde r in the s pe cial sense of the hie rarchy o f s ocial
s tructure y register var ia tion a]so reflects the s ocial orde r but in the special
sense o ith e diversity o f s ocial processes. We are not d o ing the same things all
the time ; so we s peak now in one register, now in anothe r . Bu t the totz] range
of the social processes in which any me mbe r will typically engage is a
186 Language and s ocial structure

function o f the s tructure o f society. We e ach have our own re pe rtor y of

social actions, re fle cting o u r place at the inte rs e ction o f a whole comple x o f
social hierarchies . T he re is a divis ion of labour.
Since the divis ion o f la b o ur is s oc ial’ ihe two kinds of language varie ty,
register and diale ct, are clos e ly inte r conne cte d. The s tructure o f society
de te r mine s who, in te rms of the various s ocial hie rarchie s o f class ge n­
e r ation, age> sex prove nance a nd so o n will have access to which aspects o f
⽓气he social process - a nd he nce to which registers. (In mos t societies today
there is cons ide rable scope for individua l dis cre tion, though this has not
always be e n the case.) This me ans , in tur n, that a particular re gis te r te nds to
have a pa r ticular diale ct as s ociate d w ith it: the registers o f bure aucracy, for
e xample , de ma nd the ‘s ta nda r d’ (na tio na l) diale ct, whe re as fis hing and
for ming de ma nd rural (local) varie tie s . He nce the diale ct come s to s ym­
bolize the register; whe n we he ar a local diale ct, we uncons cious ly switch off
a large par t of o ur re gis te r range.
In this way in a typical hie r archical social structure , diale ct be come s the
me ans by which a me mbe r gains, or is de nie d access to ce rtain registers.
So if we say that linguis tic s tructure *refleets1social s tructure we are re ally
as signing to language a role tha t is too passive, (I am for mulating it in this way
in orde r to ke e p the par alle l be twe e n the two expre s s ions "linguis tic s truc­
tur e ' and 1social s tructure ’ In fact, what is m ^a nt is the linguis tic system\
els e whe re 1 have not us e d ‘s tr uctur e 1in th is ge ne r al sense o f the or ganjzat ion
of language , but have reserved it for the s pe cialize d sense o f cons titue nt
s tructure .) Ra the r we s hould say that linguis tic s tr uctur e \ sthe re alization o f
social structure^ active ly symboLizing it in a process o f mutual cre ativity.
Be caus e it s tands as a me t aphor for society, language has the pr ope r ty o f not
only tr ans mitting the social or de r but ais o ma inta ining a nd pote ntially modi-
fy ingit.(T his is undoubte dly the e x pia T )a tionofthe via le nt attitude s tha t unde r
ce rtain social conditions come to be he ld by one group towards the speech o f
othe rs . A diffe re nt set o f vowels is pe rce ive d as the s ymbol o f a diffe r e nt set
o f vaJues, and hence take s on the characte r o f a thr e at.) Va r iation in
language is the s ymbolic e xpre s s ion o f variation in society: it is cre ate d by
society, a nd heJps to create s ocie ty in its turn. O f the two kinds o f var iation in
Janguage , that o f diale ct expresses the diversity o f social s tructure , that o f
register expresses the diversity o f s ocial process. T he inte raction o f diale ct
and register in language expresses the inte raction of s tructure and proce ss in
society.

2 L anguage as system
2.1 Function
We have cons ide re d how var iation in language is s ocially functional. We
mus t now cons ide r how the linguis tic system is socially functional.
T he mos t impor tant fact about language as s yste m is its or ganization into
func tio nal com pone nts ,
it is obvious tha t language is us e d in a multitude o f diffe re nt ways, fo r a
 Language and s ocial s tructure 187

multitude o f diffe r e nt purposes. It is not pos s ible to e nume r ate the m; nor is
it necessary to iry: there wo aid be no w a y of pre fe rring one list ove r anothe r.
These various ways o f us ing language are s ome time s re fe rre d to as 'functions
o f la ngua ge ’. B u t to say language has many ‘func tions in this sens^, is to say
no more than that pe ople e ngage in a varie ty o f s ocial actions - that they do
diffe re nt things toge the r.
We are cons ide r ing ‘functions ’ in a more fundame nta l sense, as a neces­
sary e le me nt in the inte r pr e tation of the linguis tic system. The linguis tic
system is orche s trate d into diffe r e nt mode s o f me aning, and these represent
its mos t general functional or ie ntations . No do ubt language has e volve d in
this way be cause o ft h e ways in which it is us e d; the two conce pts o f function
are ce rtainly inte rr e late d. Bu t if we seek to e x pla in the inte r nal workings of
language we are force d to take into cons ide r ation its e xte rnal re lation to the
social conte xt.
T he po int is a s ubs tantive one , a nd we can appr oach it fr om this angle .
Cons ide r e d in r e lation to the social orde r, language is a resource* a me aning
pote ntial. F or ma lly language has this prope rty: that it is a coding system
three levels. Mos t coding systems are on two levels: a conte nt, and an
e x pre s s ion: for e xample ^ traffic signais, with conte nt 4stop/go* code d into
e xpre s s ion 4red/green\ B u t language has e volve d a thir d, abs tract level o f
form inte rme diate be twe e n the two; it cons is ts of conte nt* for m a nd e xpre s ­
s ion, or, in linguis tic terms, o f s e mantics , le x icogrammar a nd phonology.
Now, whe n we analys e che conte nt s ide , the s e mantic system and its re p­
re s e ntation in the gr ammar , we find that it has a n inte rnal or ganization in
which the social functions of language are cle arly re fle cte d.

2 .2 Functional com pone nts

The se mantic system is or ganize d into a s mall numbe r o f compone nts - three
or four de pe nding on how one looks at the m - s uch that w ithin one c o m ­
pone nt there is a high degree o f inte rde pe nde nce a nd m utua l cons traint,
whereas between compone nts the re is ve ry little : e ach one is re lative ly
inde pe nde nt o f the others.
T he compone nts can be ide ntifie d as follows:
1 ide ational (language as re fle ction), compris ing
(a) e x pe rie ntial
(b) logical
2 inte rpe r s onal (language as action)
3 te xtual (language as te xture , in r e lation to the e nvir onme nt)
Whe n we say that these c ompone nts are re lative ly inde pe nde nt of
anothe r, we me an that the choice s that are made within any one compone nt,
while strongly affe cte d by othe r choice s within the same co mpone nt, have no
effect, or only a very we ak e ffe ct on choice s made within the othe rs . For
e x ample give n the me aning pote ntial o f the inte rpe r s onal c ompone nt, out
of the innume r able choice s that are ava ila ble to me I might choos e (i) lo
offe r a propos ition* (ii) pitc he d in a particular key (e.g. contradictory*
188 Language and social structure

de fe ns ive ), (iii) with a particular inte nt towards you (e .g. o f convincing you),
(iv) with a particular assessment o f its pr obability (e.g. ce r tain), and (v) with
indic ation o f a par ticular attitude (e.g. re gre tful). Now, all these choice s are
strongly inte r de te r mining; if we use a ne twor k mode of re pre s e ntation, as in
systemic the ory, the y can be s e e n as comple x patte rns o f inte rnal c o n ­
s traint among the various s ub- networks . But the y have almos t no effect on
the ide ational me anings , o n the com e nt o f what you are to be convince d of,
which may be that the e arth is flat, that Moza r t was a great mus ician, or tha t I
am hungry- Similarly* the ide ationa l me anings d o not de te r mine the inte r ­
pe rsonal one s ; but there is a high degree o f inte r de te r mination w ithin the
ide ational c ompone nt: ihe kind o f proce ss I choose to refer to the par ­
ticipants in the process, the tax onomie s o f things a nd prope rtie s (he cir­
cums tance s o f time a nd space, and the natur al logic that Links all these
toge the r,

2.3 Func iio nal com pone nts and gram m atical structure
So far, I have be e n lo o king at the matte r fr om a s e mantic point o f view,
taking as the pr oble m the inte r pr e ta tion o f the s e mantic system. Suppos e
now we take a s e cond approach, fr om a le xicogrammatical point o f view -
'fr om beIow\ as it were. In the inte r pr e tation o f the le xicogrammatical
system we find ours e lve s face d with a diffe re nt pr oble m, name ly that of
e x plaining the diffe re nt k inds o f s tructure that are found a( this level.
Cons ide r ation o f this proble m is be yond our scope he re ; but whe n we look
into it, we find that the various ly pes o f gr ammatical s tructure are re late d to
these s e mantic compone nts in a s ys te matic way. Ea c h kind o f me aning te nds
to be re alize d as a particular kind of s tructure . He nce in the e ncoding of a
lext e ach compone nt of me aning make s its c ontr ibution to the s tructural
o uip ut ; b ut it is a c ontr ibution which has o n it the s tamp o f that par ticular
mode of me aning. We would s ummarize this as follows (see Ha llida y 1977):

Semantic componenx Type o f grammari caf structure by

which iypicaUy realized

1 id e a t io n a l:
( a ) e Kpe r ie ntia l c o n s t it u e n t (s e g m e n t a l)
( b ) lo g ic a l r e c ur s iv e
2 in t e r p e r s o n a l pr o s o d ic
3 te vtuaJ c u lm in a t iv e

2.4 Func tional com pone nts and s ocial contex t

T hirdly, we may appr oach the que s tion ‘from above\ from the perspective
o f language and the social or de r —al what I have calle d the ‘social s e miotic'
level. Whe n we come to inve s tigate the re lation o f language to social contcxt
we find that the functional compone nts of the s e mantic system once again
 Language and s ocial s tructure 189

provide the key. We saw tha t the y were re late d to the diffe re nt type s of
grammatical s tructure . The re is als o a s ys te matic re lations hip be twe e n the m
and the s e miotic structure o f the s pe e ch s ituation. It is this in p a r t that
v a lid a te s the n o t io n o f a s pe e ch s ituation.
Le t us as s ume that the social system (o r the ‘c ult ur e ’) can be re pre s e nte d
as a cons truction o f me anings - as a s e mioiic system. T he me anings that
cons titute the social system are e xchange d thr ough a varie ty of mode s or
channe ls , o f which language is o ne ; but not, of cours e, the only one - ihe re
are many othe r s e miotic mode s besides. Give n this social- semiotic pe rs pe c­
tive, a s ocial contex t (or ‘s itua tio n in the te rms of s ituation the or y) is a
te mporary cons truct or ins tantiation o f me anings from the social system. A
socia! conte xt is a s e miotic s tructure which we may inte r pr e t in te rms of three
variables ; a lie ld ’ o f social proce ss (wha t is going o n), a *te nor1 o f 奶cial
re lations hips (w ho are ta king part) a nd a ‘m o de ’ of s ymbolic inte raction
(how are the me anings e xchange d). If we are focus ing on language , this last
cate gory o f ‘m o de refers to what part the language is playing in the s ituation
unde r cons ide ration.
As said above , these c ompone nts of the conte xt are s ys te matically re lated
to the compone nts o f the s e mantic system; and once again, give n that the
context is a s e miotic cons truct, this r e lation ca n be seen as one o f r e alization.
The me anings that cons titute the s ocial conte xt are re alize d through sciec-
tions in the me aning pote ntial o f language * T o s ummar ize ;

Comf w nem o f soci al Furtai onat-sema/ iti c component

context through \^hich typicatiy
realized

】 fie ld (s oc ia l pr oce s s ) e x pe r ie ntia l

2 t e no r (s o c ia l r e la t io n s h ip ) inte r pe r s o na l
3 m o de (s y m b o lic m ode ) te x tua l

The linguis tic system in othe r words , is or ganize d in s uch a way that the
social conte xt is pre dictive of the te x t. T his is what make s it possible for a
me mbe r to make the necessary pre dictions about the me a nings that are
be ing e xchange d in any s ituation which he encourrters. If we d r o p in on a
gathe ring, we are able to tune in. very quickly, be cause we si2e u p the fie td.
te nor and mode o f the s itua tion and at once fo r m an idea o f what is like ly
to be be ing me ant. In this way we know what s e mantic configur ations -
what register - will pr obably be re quire d if we are to take part. If we did
not do this , there would be no c o mmunic a tio n, since only a par t o f the
me anings we have to unde r s tand are e xplicitly re alize d in the wordings .
The rest are unre alize d; the y are le ft out —or rathe r (a more satisfactory
me taphor ) they are o ul of focus. We succeed in the exchange o f me anings
because we have access to the s e miotic s tructure o f the s ituation from
othe r sources.
190 Language and social s truc(ure

3 L anguage as social semiotic

3,1 V ariation and s oc ial m e aning
T he dis tinction be twe e n language as system and language as ins titution is an
impor tant one for the inve s tigation o f pr oble ms o f language a nd society. But
these are re ally two as pects o f a more ge ne ral set o f phe nome na, a nd in any
inte rpre tation o f the ^s ociolinguistic or de r we ne e d to br ing the m toge the r
again.
A s ignificant ste p in this dir e ction is take n by var iation the ory. We have
said that a fe ature o f language as ins tituiion is tha t it is var iable : diffe re nt
groups o f speakers, o r the s ame s pe ake rs in diffe re nt task- roles, use diffe re nt
dialects or registers. But this is not to im ply that the re is no var iation in the
system. Some linguis ts w ould de ny this., a nd would e x plain all var iation
ins titutionally. Othe r s (mys e lf a mong t h e m ) would argue tha t this is to make
too rigid a dis tinction be twe e n the system and Ih e ins titution, a n d would
conte nd that a m a jo r achie ve me nt o f s ocial diale ctology has be e n to show
that dialect- like variation is a nor mal fe atur e o f the s peech o f the individual,
at least in some but pos s ibly in all communitie s * At ce rtain conte xts in the
language a s pe ake r will select, with a ce r tain pr obability, one among a s mall
set o f variants all o f which are e quivale nt in the sense that they are alte r ­
native r e alizations o f the same highe i- le ve l configuration. T he conditions
de te r mining this pr obability may be linguis tic or s ocial o r some combina tion
of the two. T o know the pr obability o f a par ticular s pe ake r pr onouncing a
ce rtain var iant (say [t] glottal s top or ze r o) al a ce r tain point in the speech
chain, (say word- final), we take the pr oduct o f the c onditio ning effects o f a
set o f variable s s uch as: is the word le xical o r s tructural? doe s the following
word be gin with a vowe l? is the phras e the matic? is the s pe ake r angry? and is
h is fa th e r a me mbe r o f the wor king class? (T his is, o f course, a caricature , but
it gives a fair re pre s e ntation o f the way these thitigs are .)
So var iation, which we first re cognize as a pr ope r ty o f language as ins titu­
tion (in the form of var iation s pe ake rs , of a diale ctal kind), be gins to
appe ar as an e xte ns ion of var iation which is a prope r ty of the system. A
‘diale ct is the n j ust a s um o f variants having a s trong te nde ncy to cooccur. In
this pe rs pe ctive , diale ctal va r ia tion is made out to be not so much a c o n­
sequence o f the social s tructure as an outcome o f the inhe r e nt nature o f
language itself.
B in this is one- s ide d. In the last analys is the Linguistic system is the
product of the social s ys te m; and seen fr om that angle , dialect- like var iation
w ithin an individual is a s pe cial ease o f varia lio n between individuals , not the
othe r way r ound. T he significant p o int howe ve r Is that there is no s harp line
be twe e n this e xte rnally conditione d, so- called ‘s ociolinguis tic* var iation
that is found in the s peech o f an individua l because it is a prope rty o f
language as ins titution, and the pur e ly inte rnally conditione d var iation that
occurs within a par ticular part o f the linguis tic system (e .g. morpho-
phone mic alte r na tion). Co ndit io ning e nvir onme nts may be o f any kind;
there is ultimate ly no dis continuity be twe e n s uctt. appar e ntly diverse
 Language a nd s ocial s tructure 191

p h e n o m e n a as ( i) s e le ct [? ] n o t [t] be for e a c o n s o n a n t a n d (ii) s e le ct [ ?] no t[ t]

be fore a king. This e x plains how ii conie s about tha t all var iation is poten-
tiaJly me aningful; any sci of alte rnants may (but ne e d not) be come the
be are r o f social infor ma tion a nd social value .

3 .2 Language and s ociai re ality

Above and be yond ‘language as s ys te m’ and la ngua ge as ins titution' lies the
more ge ne r al unifying conce pt that I have labe lle d "language as social
s e miotic language in the conte xt o f the culture as a s e miotic system.
Cons ide r the way a child cons tructs his social re ality. T hr ough language as
system - its or ganization into levels of coding a nd functional compone nts -
he builds up a mode l o f the e xchange o f me anings , and le arns to cons true the
inte rpe rs onal r e lations hips , the e xpe rie ntial phe nome na the forms of
natural logic a nd the mode s of s ymbolic inte raction into cohe re nt patte rns of
social conte xt. He doe s this very young; this is in fact what make s it possible
for him to le arn the language successfully - the two processes go hand in
hand.
T hr ough language as ins titution - its variation into diale cts and registers -
he builds up a mode l o f the social system* T his follows a little way be hind bis
le ar ning o f grammar a nd s e mantics (compare the inte re s ting suggestion by
Sankoff (1974) that some patte rns a t first le ar nt as cate gorical are late r
modifie d to be come var iable ), though tt is e s s e ntially part of a single unitary
process o f language de ve Jopme nt* In broade s t te rms , from diale ctal var ­
ia tion he Jearns to cons true the patte rns of social hie rarchy, a nd from
var iation o f the "register* kind he gains an ins ight into the structure of
knowledge-
So language , while it re pre s e nts re ality thr oug h its words and
structures, aJso re presents re ality m e taphorically thr ough its own inte rnal
and e xte rnal form, (1 ) T he func tiona l or ganization o f the s e mantics s ym­
bolize s the structure o f huma n iate r action (the s e miotics of social contexts,
as we expressed it e arlie r). (2) Dia le ctal and ^ia t y p ic ' (registe r) var iation
s ymbolize re spe ctively the s tructure o f society and the s tructure o f human
knowle dge .
B u t as language be come s a me taphor of re ality, so by the same process
re ality be come s a me t aphor o f language . Since re ality is a social cons truct, it
can be cons tructe d only thr ough an e xchange o f me anings . He nce me anings
are seen as cons titutive of re ality. This* at leas t, is the natural conclus ion for
the pre s e nt era, whe n the exchange o f infor mation te nds to replace the
exchange o f goods- and- serv ices as the pr imar y mode o f social action. With a
s ociological linguis tics we s hould be able to s tand back fr om this perspective,
and arrive al an inte r pr e tation o f language thr ough unde r s tanding its place
in the long- term e volution of the social system.

3 .S Me t ho dofog ical cons ide rations

It has be e n cus tomary a mong linguis ts in recent years to re pre s e nt la n­
guage in te rms o f rules.
192 Language and social structure

In inve s tigating language and the social system, it is impor ta nt to tr ans ­

ce nd this limitation a nd to inte rpre t language not as a set o f rule s but as a
resource. I have used the te rm 'me a ning pote ntia l' to characte rize language
in this way.
Whe n we focus a tt e ntio n on the processes of huma n inte r action, we are
se e ing this me aning pote ntia l a t work. In the micr os e miotic e ncounte rs of
daily life, we find pe ople m a k ing creative use o f the ir resources o f me aning,
and continous ly modify ing these resources in the process.
He nce in the inte r pr e tation o f language , the or ganizing conce pt that we
ne e d is no t structure but system. Mo s t recent linguis tics has be e n s tructure -
bound (since s tructure is what is de s cribe d by rule s ). Wit h the notion o f
system we can re pre s e nt language as a resource, in te rms of the choice s that
are available , the inte r conne ction o f these choice s , and the conditions affe ct­
ing the ir access. We can the n re late these choice s to re cognizable and
s ignificant social contexts, us ing s ocios e mantic ne tworks ; and inve s tigate
que s tions such as the influe nce o f various s ocial factors on the me anings
e xchange d by pare nts a nd children* The data are the obs e rve d facts of
*text- in- siluation*; what pe ople say in real life, n o t dis counting what they
think they might say and what the y think they o ug ht to say. ( O r rathe r, what
they m e an, since s aying is only one way o f me aning.) In orde r to inte rpre t
what is obs e rve d, howe ve r, we have to re late it to the system: (i) to the
linguis tic system, which it the n he lps to e xplain, a nd (ii) to the social conte xt,
and thr ough tha t to the s ocial system*
Afte r a pe r iod o f inte ns ive s tudy o f language as an ide alize d philos ophical
cons truct linguis ts have come r ound t o taking account o f the fact tha t pe ople
talk to e ach othe r . In orde r to solve pure ly inte r nal pr oble ms o f its own
history a nd s tructure , language has ha d to be take n o ut o f its glass case,
dus te d, a nd put back in a living e nvir onme nt - into a Conte x t o f situation\ in
Ma linow s ki’s te rm. But it is one thing to have a ‘s ocio•’ (tha t is real life )
compone nt in the e x pla na tion o f the facts o f language . It is quite anothe r
thing to seek e x planations that re iate the linguis tic system to the social
system, and so work towards s ome ge ne r al the ory o f Language a nd social
s tructure.
Sociolinguistics and
education
11
Sociolinguistic aspects of
mathematical education

I T he de ve lopme nt o f language s

/. i T he notion o f a ‘de v e lope d language

Pe rhaps the mos t r e markable aspect of h um a n language is the range of
purpos e s it serves, the varie ty o f diffe r e nt things that pe ople make language
do for the m. Cas ual inte r action in home and family, ins tr uction o f childre n,
activitie s of pr oduc tion a nd dis tr ibution like build ing and mar ke ting, and
more s pe cialize d func tions s uch as thos e o f r e ligion, lite r atur e , law and
gove r nme nt - all these may re adily be cove re d by one pe rs on in one day's
talk.
We can de fine a 'de ve lope d' language as one tha t is used freely in all the
functions that language serves in the society in que s tion. Cor r e s pondingly an
^undeveloped^ language w ould be one that serves only some of these func­
tions^ but not a ll T his is to inte rpre t language de ve lopme nt as a functional
conce pt, one which re late s to the role o f a language in the society in which it
is s poke n.
In the Car ibbe an is land of Sint Ma a r t e n the mothe r tongue o f the
inhabitants is Englis h, Ed uc a tion and adminis tr a tion, howe ve r, take place in
Dutc h; Englis h is not normally used in these conte xts . In Sint Maar te n,
Englis h is an unde ve lope d language . T he is lande rs find it har d to conce ive of
s erious int e lkc iua l and adminis tr ative processes ta king place in Englis h.
T he y are, of course, pe rfe ctly we ll aware tha t Englis h is us e d in all these
functions in Br itain, the U S A a nd e ls e whe re . But the y cannot acce pt that
the home ly Englis h that they the ms e lve s s pe ak (a lthough diale ctally it
is o f a quite ‘s tandar d’ type that is r e adily unde r s tood by s peakers from
outs ide ) is the same language as Englis h in its nationa l o r inte rnational
guise.
In the same way, Englis h in me die val Engla nd was not a de ve lope d
language , since many of the social functions o f language in the community
could be pe r for me d only in La tin or in Fre nch.
No t unnatur a lly, the me mbe r s o f a society te nd to attach social value to
the ir language s according to the degree o f the ir de ve lopme nt, A language
that is ‘de ve lope d be ing us e d in all the functions that language serves in the
society, te nds to have a highe r s tatus while an unde ve lope d language is
accorde d a much lowe r s tanding, eve n by thos e who s pe ak it as the ir mothe r
tongue .
 Sociolinguis tic aspects o f ma the matical e duc ation 195

1 2 The notion o f a register

T he notion of ‘de ve loping a language ' me ans , the r e fore , adding to its range
o f social functions . T his is achie ve d by de ve loping ne w registers.
A re gis te r is a set o f me anings that is appr opr iate to a par ticular function
o f language , toge the r with the words and s tructures which express these
me anings . We can re fe r to a 'mathe matics re gis te r in the sense o f the
me anings that be long to the language o f mat he matics (the mathe matical use
o f natur al language , that is: n o t mathe matics its e lf), and tha t a language
mus t express if it is be ing used for mathe matica l purpos e s .
Eve ry language e mbodie s s ome mathe maticaL me anings in its s e mantic
structure - ways of c ounting, me as uring, clas s ifying a nd so on. Thes e are not
by the ms e lve s s ufficie nt to form the natur al language c ompone nt of
mathe matics in its mode r n dis ciplinary sense, o r to serve the ne e ds of
mathe matics e duc ation in se condary s chools a nd colleges. But they will
serve as a point of de parture for the initial Learning o f mathe matical c o n­
ce pts , e s pe cially if the te aching is made re le vant to the social backgr ound o f
the le arne r. The de ve lopme nt o f a register o f mathe matics is in the las t resort
a matte r o f degree-
It is the me anings , inctuding the styles o f me a ning and inode s o f ar gume nt,
that cons titute a register, r athe r than the words and s tructure s as such, tn
or de r lo express new me anings , it may be necessary to inve nt new words ; bm
there are many diffe re nt ways in which a language can add new me anings ,
and inve nting words is only o n e o f the m. We s hould not think of a ma the ma t­
ical register as cons is ting solely o f te r minology, or of the de ve lopme nt o f a
register as s imply a process o f a dd ing new words,

1 3 De v e lopm e nt o f a register of m athe m atics

Ine vitably the de ve lo pme ni o f a ne w re gis te r o f mathe matics will involve the
intr oduction o f ne w ‘thing .na me s ’ ways of re fe rring to new obje cts or new
processes, prope rtie s , functions and re lations . T he re are var ious ways in
which this can be done .
(i) Re inte r pr e ting e xis ting words . Ex a mple s fr om mathe matical Englis h
zrc: set, pointy fie lds raw , colum n^ w e ight^stand ja r ys um 7m ov e th ro ug hyeven
(numbe r ), random .
(ii) Cr e ating new words out o f native word stock. T his proce ss has noi
playe d a very gre at part in the cr e ation o f te chnical registers in Englis h (an
early e xample o f it is d o c k wise)^ but re ce ntly it has come into favour with
words like s hortfall fe e dbac k , o u tp u t
(iii) Bor r owing w oids fr om anothe r language . This has be e n the me thod
mos t favoure d in te chnical Englis h. Mathe matic s e xample s include de gre e
series, ex ceed s ubtract, m ultiply , inv e rt’ in finite ^ probable .
(iv) 'Calquing": cre ating new words in imita tion o f anothe r language . This
is rare in mode r n Englis h, tho ugh it is a re gular fe ature o f ma ny language s ; it
was us e d in Old Englis h to re nde r Chr is tia n te rms fr om La t in e.g. alm ighty
calque d onom nipote ns . ( L a t i n ipoterts is made up o fo m ni- me aning "air
196 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

and pote ns me aning 'mighty'; on this mode l was coine d the Englis h word
ail- m ighty t now spelt alm ighty .)
(v) Inve ntmg totally new words. T his hardly e ve r happe ns . Ab o u t t h e o n ly
Englis h e x ample is gas , a wor d coine d o u t o f nowhe re by a Dutc h che mis t in
the e arly e ighte e nth ce ntury.
(vi) Cr e ating ‘locutions . T he re is n o cle ar line be twe e n locmions , in the
sense of phras es o r large r structures , and c ompound words . Expre s s ions Uke
right- angle d triangle , s quare on the hy pote nus e , low e st c om m on m ultiple are
e xample s o f te chnical te rms in maihe matics Englis h that are to be classed as
locutions r athe r than c ompo und words.
vii Cr e ating new words out o f non- native word stock. T his is now (he
mos t typical proce dure in conte mpor ar y Eur ope a n language s for the cr e ­
ation o f ne w te chnical terms. Wor ds like parabo la, de nom inator, b in o m iai,
coe fficie nt, the rm ody nam ic pe rm utatio ny approx im ation^ de num e rable ,
as y m ptotic >figurate , are no t bor r owe d from Gr e e k and La tin - they did not
exist in these language s . T he y are made u p in Englis h (a nd in Fr e nch
Rus s ian and othe r language s ) out o f e le me nts o f the Gr e e k a nd La tin word
s tock.

Eve ry language creates ne w thing- name s ; but not all language s do so in

the same way. Some language s (s uch as Englis h a nd Japane s e ) favour
bor rowing; othe rs (s uch as Chine s e ) fa vour calqumg. But all language s have
mar e than one mode of word- cre ation; ofte n diffe ie nt mode s are adopte d
for diffe r e nt purpos e s - for e xample , one me thod may be typical for te c hni­
cal words and anothe r for non te chnical. T he re is no reason to say that one
way is be tte r than anothe r ; b ut it is impor ta nt to find out how the s peakers o f
a par ticular language in fact set abo ut cr e ating ne w te rms whe n faced with
the necessity of doing so. T he In d ia n linguis t Kr is hnamur thi (1 9 62 ) has
s tudie d howT e lugu- s pe aking communitie s o f farme rs , fis he rme n a nd textile
workers, whe n confr onte d by ne w machine s a nd ne w processes, made up the
te rms which were necessary for ta lking about the m.
Socie tie s are not s tatic and change s in mate rial a nd social conditions le ad
to r e w me anings be ing e xchange d. T he mos t impor ta nt thing about voc­
abular y cr e ation by natur al processes is th a t it is ope n- e nde d; more words
can always be adde d. T he re is no limit to the numbe r of words in a language ,
and there are always some registers which are e xpanding. Language
de ve lope rs have the s pe cial re s pons ibility o f cre ating ne w e le me nts of the
vocabulary which will not only be ade quate in the ms e lve s but which will also
point the way to the cr e ation of others.

IA S tructural aspects
But the intr oduc tion o f ne w vocabular y is not the only as pe ct o f the
de ve topme nt of a register. Re gis te rs s uch as those o f mathe matics , or o f
science a nd te chnology, als o involve ne w styles o f me a ning, ways o f de ­
ve loping an ar gume nt, and o f c o mbining e xis ting e le me nts into ne w c o m ­
binations .
 Sociolinguis tic aspects o f ma the matical e duc ation 197

Some time s these processes de mand ne w s tructure s , and ihe re are

instances o f s tructural innovation taking place as part o f the de ve lopme nt o f
a s cie ntific register. For the mos t part, howe ve r, de ve lopme nt take s place
not thr ough the cr e ation of e ntire ly ne w s tructure s (a thing that is e xire me ly
difficult to do de libe r ate ly) but thr ough ihe br inging into promine nce of
structures which alre ady existed but were rathe r specialise d or rare. Ex a m ­
ples o f this phe nome non from Englis h can be seen in expressions like
‘s ignaMo'nois e r a tio ‘the s um o f (he series t o « te rms ', ‘the s ame n u m b e r o f
mis take s plus or minus ‘e ach te rm is one gre ate r than the te rm which
precedes it\ 4a set of te rms each o f which s tands in a cons tant mathe matical
r e laiiotis hip to that which pre cedes if . We can compare these with new
forms o f eve ryday e xpre s s ion such as i t was a non- e ve nt1(me a ning ‘nothing
s ignificant happe ne d'), which are de rive d fr om te chnical registers although
used in nonte clinical contexts.
T he re is no s harp divid ing line , in language be twe e n the vocabulary and
the grammar . Wh a t is expressed in one language by ihe choice o f words may
be expressed in anothe r language (o r in the s ame language on anothe r
occas ion) by the choice o f structure* T he 4open- endedness^ re fe rre d to
e arlie r is a prope rty o f the le x icogrammar as a whole . There are inde finite Jy
many me anings , and c ombinations o f me anings , to be expressed in one way
or anothe r thr ough the me dium o f the words and structure s o f a language ;
and more can always be adde d. T his is a re fle ction of the total pote ntial that
every language has, e ach in its own way.
In the past, language de ve lopme nt has take n place slowly, by more or less
natur al processes (‘more or less natur al be cause the y are, afte r all, the effect
of social processes) taking place ove r a long pe r iod. It took Englis h thre e or
four hundr e d years to de ve lop its registers o f mathe matics , science and
te chnology, and they are still de ve loping. T oday, howeve r, it is not e nough
fo r a language to move in this leisurely fas hion; the process has to be s peede d
up. De ve lopme nts that took ce nturie s in Englis h a nd Fre nch are e xpe cte d to
happe n in te n years, or one ye ar, or s ome time s one month. T his re quire s a
high degree of pla nne d language de ve lopme nt. Mot e ve ryone involve d in
this work is always aware o f the wide range of diffe r e nt resources by me ans
of which language can create ne w me anings , or of how the language in which
he hims e lf is wor king has done so in the past. B u t the re is now, a more
general unde r s tanding o f the fact that all huma n language s have the pote n­
tial o f be ing de ve lope d for ail the purpos e s that huma n s ocie ty and the
huma n br ain ca n conce ive .

2 DifTerenccs and ^distance9 between languages

2,1 Language s diffe r in the m e anings they e m phas ize
T he principle jus t re fe rre d to is o f funda me nta l impor tance : name ly that all
Janguages. have the s ame pote ntial for de ve lopme nt as ve hicles for
mathe matics science and te chnology, or inde e d for any thing else.
T his doe s not imply that all language s are ide ntical in the me anings the y
198 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

express, or lhat la ng ua g e de ve lopme nt* is a matte r o f plugging holes, o f

adding a fixe d set o f new me anings to an inve ntory that is alr e ady there.
Language s diffe r in the ir me anings jus t as they do in the ir words and
s tructure s a nd in the ir sounds ; a nd the diffe re nce s are found bo th in the bas k
units (o f me aning, for m a nd s ound) a n d in the way these units are combine d.
T he re are nume r ous e x ample s of diffe re nce s in me aning be twe e n lan*
guages; the one s mos t fr e que ntly cite d te nd to come fr om ce rtain particular
s e mantic areas, such as those o f c o lo ur and kins hip. It is impor ta nt to stress,
the re fore , that these do not imply diffe re nt mode s of pe rce ption or o f
thought. On e o f the mos t var iable apects o f s e mantics is colour ; there are
innume r abie ways o f s plitting up ihe colour s pe ctrum. T he fact that Englis h
has one single word blue cove ring the whole range of sky blue , royal blue ,
peacock blue , midnight blue , indigo etc. doe s not me an that an Englis h child
cannot dis tinguis h these colours* He may not have name s for the m, but that
is an e ntire ly diffe r e nt matte r. T he s ame applie s to any othe r language . If a
language is s aid *not to dis tinguis h be twe e n green a nd blue\ this merely
me ans that it has a colour te rm cove r ing at least some part o f the range of
colour that is re fe rre d to in Englis h by ‘gre e n’ a nd *blue\ lt does not me an
that the s peakers of this, language have a diffe r c m colour vis ion.
Similar ly, CngJis h has only one word ‘cous in’ cove r ing a gre at varie ty of
kins folk: m o the r ’s or fathe r's , sister's o r br othe r's , daughte r o r s on, to name
only the closest. T his doe s no( me an a s pe ake r o f Englis h cannot tell his
relatives apart. It me ans s imply tha t the s e mantics o f kins hip, which differs
wide ly fr om language to language , has little to do with biological r e la­
tions hips . It come s clos er to re fle cting the social structure , but still not with
exact corre s ponde nce .
Ma ny language s have the same wor d for "yesterday9 and 'tomor r ow'.
This does not me a n that the ir s peakers cannot dis tinguis h be twe e n what has
alre ady ha ppe ne d a n d what is still to come .
T his may be s ummar ize d as follows : language s have diffe re nt patte rns of
me a ning - diffe r e nt *s e mantic systems ’ in the te r minology of linguis tics .
These are s ignificant for the ways the ir s peakers inte r act with one anothe r ;
not in the sense that the y de te r mine the ways in which the me mbe r s o f the
c ommunity perceive the world a r ound the m, but in the sense that they
de te rmine what the me mbe r s o f the c ommunity atte nd to. Ea c h language has
it$ own characte ris tic mode s o f me aning, things which it br ings into pr om­
ine nce , which it associates with one anothe r , a nd which it has to express
(unde r s pe cifiable conditions ) where in anothe r language the y are me re ly
optional extras. For e xample * some language s (o f which Englis h is one )
de mand atte ntion to the time at which an e ve nt take s place , whe the r it is
past, present or future relative to s ome point o f refe rence (initia lly the
mo me nt of s pe aking), whe re as othe r language s (o f which Chine s e is one ) are
conce rne d with the comple tion o f the e ve nt a nd with whe the r its s ignificance
lies in its e lf o r in its cons e que nce s . Ea c h language is pe rfe ctly capable of
ve rbalizing the time system of the othe r type, but the system doe s not re quire
it, a nd to do so ofte n involve s cir c umlocutions a nd re lative ly unus ual mode s
 Sociolinguis tic aspects o f mathe matical e duc ation 199

of expres s ion. He nce although speakers o f both types o fla ng ua g e have the
same pe rce ption of events, they pay atte ntion to diffe r e nt characte ris tics of
the m and so build up a rathe r diffe r e nt fr ame wor k for the s ys te matization of
experience.
T he impor tance o f this point is that we can ask w hich mathe matical ideas
may be mos t easily conve ye d whe n the me dium o f mathe matics e ducation is
this or that particular language . Conce pts o f numbe r , o f taxonomy, of
volume we ight and de ns ity, o f sets and series, and so o n , may be various ly
highlighte d m the s e mantics of diffe r e nt language s and one o f the impor ta nt
areas of inve s tigation in any language is finding o u t how best to e xploit its
s e mantic resources as a base for the te aching of mathe matics .

2.2 S om e re m ark s about 'dis tance '

The conce pt ofla ng ua ge ‘dis tance ’ - the notion o f how far apar t any pair of
language s is s aid to be • de pe nds partly on linguis tic cons ide rations ("lan­
guage as system^) a nd partly on s ociolinguis tic one s (la n g ua g e as institu-
t io n ’) Sociolinguis tically, in te rms o f status a nd functions , we can re cognize
a series be ginning with the ne ighbour hood language , thr ough LocaE, re gional
and nationa l language s , to an inte r national language , a nd it is obvious (hat
the greatest s ociolinguis tic dis tance is tha t which s e parate s a ne ighbour hood
language from an inte r national one*
Linguis tically, the ‘dis tance 1 is harde r to me as ure ; it is a conce pt that
up io the present has r e maine d large ly intuitive , a llho ug h almos t uni­
versally re cognize d. T he re is a ge ne r al principle whe re by language s that
b e lo ng t o t h e s ame cultur al r e gion te nd to be alike in the me anings (a nd ofte n
als o in the s ounds ) they e mploy. T his s imilarity is not de pe nde nt on any
his lorical.ge ne ticr e lations hipbe t^ve e n the language s conce rne d. Eas t Afr ica,
India and Southe as t As ia all provide e x ample s o f the phe nome non^ which
is known as ‘are al affinity .
T he s ignificance o f this for e ducators is tha t it is ge ne r ally eas ie r to transfer
from the mothe r tongue to a language fr om the same cultur e are a tha n to one
that is cultur ally very re mote , since the forme r is like ly to be much clos er in
its ways of me aning. (It may also be clos er in it« s tructure s , b ut that is by no
me ans so ge ne rally the case.) A pe rs on is more like ly to attain a high degree
o f compe te nee in a Language are ally re late d to his mothe r tongue than in one
that doe s not share such affinity.

2.3 T he unique ne s s o f the m othe r tongue

Op inio ns diffe r re garding the unique ne s s o f the mothe r tongue . It is ce r ­
tainly true that many pe ople acquire a s e cond and eve n a thir d or four th
language to a level o f compe te nce that is indis tinguis hable fr om that attaine d
in the ir mothe r tongue , par ticular ly whe n these language s are from the same
cultur e area.
O n the othe r hand, it is true that for very many pe ople , e ve n those who
re gularly use more than one language , no language ever comple te ly replaces
the mo the r tongue . Ce r tain kinds o f ability s eem to be particular ly difficuJt
200 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

to acquire in a s econd language . Am o n g these, the following are pe rhaps

mos t impor tant in an e ducational context:
(i) Saying ihe s ame thing in diffe r e nt ways. On e o f the gre at resources o f a
teacher is to be able to alte r the wor ding o f what he says while ke e ping the
me aning as close as poss ible. Ve r y ofte n a pupil who has fo und it difficult to
gras p a po int will see it re adily whe n it is expres s ed in a diffe r e nt way. All too
ofte n the te ache r who is force d to te ach in a language othe r than his mothe r
tongue has at his c omma nd only one way o f saying s ome thing.
(ii) He s itating, and say ing nothing very much. He s itating is a way o f
ke e ping the channe l o f com m un icat ion ope n while thinking what to say next;
closely re late d to it is what we might call ‘waffling’ (if this may be allowe d to
function as a te chnical te rm), which is ke e ping the words going while saying
practically nothing. Bo th o f the s « have impor ta nt social functions ’ not least
in the clas s room; they are r e mar kably difficult to achie ve in a second
language .
(iii) Pr e dicting what the othe r pe rs on is going to say. T his is very much
easier in o ne ’s own language ; yet it is an essential o f successful le arning (hat
the pupil s hould at any give n mo me nt be able to pre dict a large part o f what
the te ache r is going to say next* T he fact that pe ople are able to communicate
and e xchange me anings at all de pe nds on this ability.
(iv) Adding ne w ve rbal s kills (le ar ning new words and ne w me anings )
while talking a nd liste ning. All the time , as we talk and lis te n, we are he ar ing
new me anings , things tha t we have never he ard be fore . In our mothe r
tongue , we process these ne w e le me nts aU the tim e without thinking. In a
second language , it is ofte n very difficult to continue inte r acting (ta lking and
lis te ning) while at the s ame time le ar ning ne w things ; e ach o f these types of
activity tends to de ma nd the whole o f one ’s atte ntion
It is not be ing suggested that we can ne ve r Learn to do these things in a
second language . Ple nty o f pe opie the world ove r d o so with comple te
success. Ne ve rthe le s s the re are vast numbe r s o f childre n be ing e ducate d
thr ough the me dium o f a second language ⼀一and o f teachers tr ying to teach
the m - who have not mas te re d these essential abilitie s .

3 The r elation between mathematics and natur al language

3.1 Mathe m atical concepts and the ir nam e s
How do we set abo ut le ar ning mathe matica l conce pts and the ir name s ? A
child be gins for ming ma the matical conce pts very e arly in life . He r e is an
illus tration from one Englis h- s pe aking child, Nige l. A t 20 months Nige l had
le arnt the numbe r- name tw o, which he could use quite correctly in expre s ­
sions such as *two books ', ‘two cars ’ a nd so on.
On e day he he ld up a toy bus in one hand a nd a toy tr ain in the othe r. ‘T wo
c h u ffa / he said hope fully^ us ing his baby wor d for train. It didn't seem quite
right, so he tried again. T w o . . . two • ., t wo . . he we nt o n trying to find the
right words . Bu t the proble m was be yond h im so he gave up. T his was an
 Sociolinguis tic aspects o f ma the matical e duca tion 201

e arly atte mpt at classifying, at finding a highe r class to which b o t h the obje cts
be longe d. Il faile d, frus trate d by the Englis h language , which has no e ve ry­
day word for the class o f whe e le d ve hicle s ; but I he fact that he had atte mple d
it, and re alize d he had faile d, s howe d that he ha d gras pe d the es s ential
principle .
He had a pos ting box, with a a umbe r o f hole s in the lid to e ach o f which
corre s ponde d a piece o f a pa r ticular s hape - star, triangle , circle , a nd so on.
He soon le arnt to pos t the m all corre ctly, and the n de ma nde d name s for all
the shapes. He was not s atis fie d until he had name s fo r e ach o f the m.
At his second bir thda y he was ^ive n a woode n train a nd a set o f groove d
pieces, some s traight and s ome curve d, whic h could be fitte d toge the r to
make a railway track. Whe n lie ha d le ar nt to fit the m together* he
e xpe rime nte d with various layouts , which gradually incre as e d in comple xity
ove r the next two years. For these figure s too, he de mande d name s , but
finding tha t in this case there were none (or none known to his pare nts ) he
be gan inve nting the na me s for hims e lf. These name s had for ms s uch as
*cruse- way\ ‘shockJe- way’ 'dee- way* and the like , s howing that he had
mas te re d one o f the principle s o n which name s are cons tructe d in Englis h.
These e xample s s how that a c hild has a natur al te nde ncy to organize his
e nvir onme nt in systematic ways (w hic h is e s s e ntially a ma the matical ope r ­
ation), and to make use ofla ng ua ge fo r doing so, e ve n if he has to cre ate the
necessary language for hims e lf. O f cours e, childre n diffe r cons ide rably in
what aspects o f the ir e nvir onme nt inte re s t the m mos t, a nd it is obvious that
s ome childre n are at an advantage be cause o f the wide range o f e xpe rie nce
that is available to tKem* B u t mos t childr e n grow up in e nvir onme nts in
which there is ple nty for the ir br ains to work on, acid it w ould be a mis take to
suppose that a rural life with fe w manmade arte facts provide s no basis for
systematic le arning. For e x ample , the e nvir onme nt may contain few s imple
ge ome tric shapes, ju d g ing dis tance and te r rain may be e xtre me ly impo r ­
tant.
Wh a t matte rs mos t to a c hild is how much ta lking goes on a r ound him, and
how much he is allowe d a nd e ncourage d lo jo in in. T he re is s trong e vide nce
that the more adults talk to a child and lis te n to him and ans we r his
que s tions , the more quic kly and e ffe ctive ly he is able to le ar n.

3,2 Diffe re nt levels o f te chnicality

Ro be r t Mor r is (1 9 75 ) r e marke d that ‘the language o f mode r n mathe matics
is bor r owe d to a very large e xte nt fr om the commonpla c e language o f
ordinary folk*; and it is true that, in Englis h at leas t, mode r n mathe matics
has te nde d to re de fine s imple words r a the r than coining ne w one s for Us
te chnical te rms . T his in fact is part o f the difficulty; the fact that a conce pt
s uch as ‘set* has a precise mathe mat ic al de finition may be obs cure d by the
s implicity o f the word itself.
Be that as it ma y ‘m o de r n’ mathe matics doe s make gre ate r de ma nds on
language than 'tr a dit io na l1 partly be cause it is r e lative ly non- nume ricaU but
pe rhaps even more be caus e its re lations with othe r aspects o f life are
 202 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

e mphas ize d more e xplicitly, whe re as in e arlie r days, mathe matics te nde d to
r e main quite s e parate fr om the rest o f a c h ild ’s e xpe rie nce .
Howe ve r, it would be a mis take to s uppos e that the language o f m a the m a ­
tics (by which is me ant the ma the matical register, that fo r m o f natur al
language used in mathe matics , rathe r tha n ma the matical s ymbolis m) is
e ntire ly impe r s onal, for mal and exact. On the contr ary, it has a great de al o f
me taphor and e ve n poe try in it, and it is precisely here that the difficultie s
ofte n reside. Expre s s ions such as ‘four from six leaves tw o’ re pre s e nt es s en­
tially concre te mode s o f me a ning that take on a me taphor ical guis e whe n
used to express abs tr act for mal re lations (i.e . whe n inte rpr e te d as
‘6 - 4 = T ).
T he re are many diffe r e nt levels of te chnicality within mathe matical la n­
guage. Mathe matical and scientific language has howe ve r a numbe r o f
features which are/tor in the ms e lve s te chnical, b ut which re late to che nature
o f the subje ct- matte r and the activitie s associated with it* Ma the matical and
s cientific Englis h, for e xample , shows a high de gre e o f nomina liza tion.
Cons ide r the s e nte nce ‘T he conve rs ion o f hydroge n to he lium in the in ­
te riors o f stars is the source of e ne rgy fo r the ir imme ns e output o f light and
heat." T his couJd be r e worde d as "ins ide stars hydroge n is conve rte d into
he lium, and fr om this (proces s? re s ult?) they get the e ne rgy to put out an
imme ns e a mount o f light and h e a t / The s econd ve rs ion corre s ponds more
closely to mode s of e xpre s s ion in a numbe r o f othe r languages . It is not easy
to say whe the r there is ^ny ge ne ral re as on, inde pe nde nt o f which language is
be ing used, why mathe matical a nd s cie ntific registers s hould pre fe r nominal
mode s o f expres s ion. In Englis h at any rate, there are good re as ons for it,
despite the fact that te ache rs o f Englis h te nd to obje ct to it (see Halliday
1967a and c). In Englis h, loc uuons w ith nominals in the m have a gre ate r
s e mantic a nd syntactic pote ntial for diffe re nt e mphas e s and diffe re nt info r ­
mation structures , e.g. ‘It is the conve rs ion of hydroge n to he lium that
is . . ’/ W h a t the conve rs ion of hydr oge n to he lium doe s is t o ., a nd so on.
At the same lime , no mina liza tio n doe s s ome time s obs cure ambiguitie s ; for
e xample , in the above sentence it is not cle ar whe the r it is the conve rs ion
proce ss , o r the he lium tha t results fr om tha t process, that provide s (he
energy. T he non- nominalize d for m o f the s e nte nce forces us to make this
e xplicit.

J . J Language is a natural h u m an cre ation

Ve r balizing doe s not necessarily imply naming. One may us e language to
introduce a conce pt, or to he lp childre n towards an unde r s tanding o f it
without at any time in the process re fe rring to the conce pt by name .
We are r e adily aware that the re is no ne e d to nam e a conce pt at the outset.
This does not me an that we ke e p s ile nt while ma nipula ting obje cts or doing
whate ve r else is being, done to facilitate le ar ning. O n the conlrary, the more
inform al talk goes o n be twe e n te ache r and le ar ne r aro und the conce pt,
re lating to it oblique ly thr ough all the mode s o f le ar ning that are available in
the conte xt, the more he lp the le ar ne r is ge tting in mas te r ing it.
 Sociolinguis tic aspects o f ma the matical e duc ation 203

La ngua ge unlike mathe matics is not cle arcut or precise. It is a nacural

huma n cr e ation, a nd like many othe r natur al huma n cre ations , it is inhe r ­
e ntly messy. Anyone who for malize s natur al language does so at the cost o f
ide alizing it to such ari e xte nt that it is hardly re cognizable as language any
more> and be ars little likeness to the way pe ople actually inte ract wiih one
anothe r by talking.
T he cons e que nce o f this is that a te r m for a ma the matical conce pt may
aJso exist as an e le me nt in natur al language , a nd so carry with it the whole
s e mantic load that this implie s . T his is one o f the difficultie s face d by those
who are cr e ating ma the matical te r minology in a language not pre vious ly
used for for mal ma the matical purpos e s. T he process o f word cre ation can be
s pe e de d u p by pla nning a nd by the work o f commis s ions on te r minology. By
contras t, the process by which layers o f me aning accrue is a natur al process
and it take s time . On ly gradually as the new words be come fa milia r , and
come to be us e d in br oade r and br oade r ranges o f ve rbal e nvir onme nts - in
new structures, and particular ly in ne w collocations a nd new ar gume nts -
will they be fully dome s ticate d in the language , a nd acquire a wide range of
associations. Eve ntually they will acquire the me anings that are ‘in the a ir '
and this will be the case e ve n for speakers o f that Language who do not know
the ir exact me anings as te chnical lerms_

4 Pos ts cript

Ou r e xpe rie nce o f reality is ne ve r ne utraL Obs e r ving me ans inte rpr e ting;
e xpe rie nce is inte rpre te d thr ough the patte rns o f knowle dge and the value
systems that are e mbodie d in cultur e s and in language s .
T o ihe e xte nt that any fie ld o f e xpe rie nce is pattern- free and value- free, lo
that e xte nt it mus t s eem o d d , a nd unlike othe r forms o f e xpe rie nce . Pre ­
s umably mathe matics approache s as closely to this point as we ever get.
Eve n mathe matical re ality, howeve r, is far fr om be ing free o f s upe rimpos e d
patte rns and values. O n the one ha nd, the conce pts o f or ganize d mathe ma*
tics are me diate d thr ough the ma the matica l me anings that are built into the
eve ryday language >me anings which are in tur n ukima te ly de rive d from the
actions a nd e ve nts o f daily life . On the othe r ha nd, ma the matical ide a l­
izations- are the ms e lve s the be are rs o f s ocial value (the two senses o f'id e a l'
are closely re late d); more ove r , mathe matics involve s talk, and it is im­
possible to talk about things w ithout conve ying attitude s a nd inte rpe rs onal
judge me nts .
Pe r haps for these re as ons the re is a fe e ling s hare d by many te achers , and
othe rs conce r ne d with e ducation, that le ar ning ought to be made less de pe n­
de nt on language ; a nd teachers o f mathe matics , in particular^ e mphas is e the
impor tance of le a r ning thr ough concre te ope r ations o n obje cts . T his is a
very positive move . At the same time there is no po int in tr ying to e liminate
language from the le a r ning process altoge the r. Ra t he r than e ngage in any
such vain a tt e mpt we s hould seek e qually pos itive ways of advancing those
aspects o f the le ar ning process which ar e , e s s e ntially, linguis tic. We ne e d not
204 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

de plore the te nde ncy of language to impos e patte rns and values on reality;
on the contrary, it is a te nde ncy that a le ar ne r can put to his advantage , once
he, and his teachers, are aware of how language functions (a nd how his
par ticular language functions ) in these respects.
T able 5 presents a ‘che cklis t o f pos s ible sources o f linguis tic difficulty
facing a le arne r o f mathe matics . The e ntr ie s unde r e a c h he ading can be seen
e ithe r as pos s ible difficultie s for the le ar ne r , or as factors o f conce rn to the
e ducator. The he adings unde r ‘linguis tic’ are the d i f f e r e n t o f possible
mis unde r s tanding by a le arne r; the y are als o the compone nts o f the
mathe matical register. A language that is be ing us e d for mathe matical
purpos e s has to de ve lop the appropr iate me anings , toge the r with the words
and s tructure s to express the m, and als o to express the me anings that are
r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e mathe nr iEitic a l n o t a t io n . N o La ngua ge is in h e r e n t ly ' m o r e
ma the mat ic ar than any othe r . AJl language s have the pote ntia l o f de ve lop­
ing mathe matica l registers; but since language s diffe r in the ir me anings , and
in the ir s tructure and vocabulary, the y may als o diffe r in the ir paths towards
mathematics^ and in the ways in which ma the matical conce pts can mos t
effectively be taught.

T able 5 Linguistic factors in malt'kematN^al education

如 is va 镳1 / " &!
咖 /
$
// s in 抑
item^
s f

a narguTTients
& a n tl 夂
0

b words and structures ('lexioogramrriaf'):

/ sentence and phrase structure ('syntax')
ii words (Vocat)utaryF)
iii word structures (■morphotegy1)
symboPs: degree and kind of -fit' bdtwaen vert>al expression arxj matt>emaiica爾
natati "
SodoHnguistics (language as institutiory)
a functional status of language being used as medii\um of education
i general: how widely used ir>the society in question
" special: how far mathematical registers are dev-dfoped
b if language
language b^ing used is other than
us e d is tbsn mother tongue,
to whether:
j international language
ii national language
ifi regional language
iv standard dialect, then;
c distance' from mother tongue:
i in functions and status
« in wortd view and meanrfig styies
ifi in internal structure
Breakthrough to literacy:
Foreword to the American edition*

Since the programme that produce d B re ak through to lite racy was calle d
‘Pr ogr amme in Linguis tics a nd Englis h T e aching’ and since some o f us in it
were linguists, il was no t unre as onable to as sume tha t what we we re trying to
de ve lop (here was a lin g uis t ic a ppr oa c h . We would acce pt this labe l if we
could inte rpre t it to me an what we ours e lve s unde r s tand by a linguis tic
approach. But there have be e n several linguis tic appr oache s ’ to r e ading and
wr iting tha t are so diffe r e nt fr om what we have in mind that we hes itate to
subscribe to this de s ignation. In what sense, th e n is Bre ak through 'lin ­
guistic* in Its c once ption? It is linguis tic in the sense that it is founde d o n an
unde r s tanding a nd inte r pr e tation o f what language is a nd wha t part il plays
in o ur lives: on the notion ofla ng ua ge as a system, and how it works - o r to
put the same thing in anothe r way o f language as a "me aning po te m ia l a
resource that me n a nd wome n de ve lop in the cours e of, and for the purpos e
of s ignificant and me aningful inte raction with one anothe r . T his e nable s us
to place language in a perspective* a perspective that we can share w ith a
child. A child who is le a r ning his mothe r tongue is le ar ning how to me an. He
is b uild ing up a pote ntial, a pote ntial for s ymbolic action which in large
meas ure Is going to de te r mine the kind of life he le ads .
T he Bre ak through appr oach is ‘linguis tic the n, not in the sense that it
derives from this or that par ticular conce ption o f linguis tics - a s ubje ct
whose acade mic boundar ie s have te nde d to be dr awn much too nar owly for
most e ducational purpos e s - but in the sense tha t it is bas e d on a serious
cons ide ration o f the natur e and functions o f language . We start fr om what
childre n can do with language , which is alr e ady a great de al by the time they
come to s chool; and fr om what they cannot ye t do but are le ar ning to do with
language as weU as what the y will ne e d to le ar n to d o with it in orde r to
succeed in s chool a n d in life.
We all use language for many diffe re nt purpos es , in a wide varie ty of
come xts . And s ome o f these purpos e s are s uch that they cannot be ade ­
quate ly served by language in its s poke n for m; the y ne e d writing. The
impe tus for re ading and wr iting is a func tiona l one , jus t as was the impe tus
for le ar ning to s pe ak and lis te n in the firs t place . We le arn to s peak because
we warn to do things that we cannot do othe r wis e ; and we le ar n to re ad and
write for the same re as on. T his doe s not me an s imply atte nding to the
* D a v id Ma c k a y . Br ia n T h o m p s o n a n d P a m e la S c h a u b , B reakthrough to literacy (G(e nd a le ,
Ca lifo r n ia 197 3).
206 Sociolinguis tics and e ducaiion

practical things of life , like ge tting fe d and clothe d and amus e d. Huma n
beings are inte re s te d in the world a r ound the m not only as a source of
mate rial satis faction but als o as s ome thing to e xplore , re fle ct on a nd unde r ­
s tand - and to s ing about and ce le brate in story and in rhyme . For this they
need to talk, and s oone r o r late r to write .
丁 his was true in the his tory o f the huma n race, a nd it is true als o in the
history o f the individual. From his first year o f life a child is le ar ning (o speak,
and to unde r s tand othe rs s pe aking; he is alre ady be ginning to e xchange
me anings with the pe ople ar ound him. T he re come s a time whe n what he
wants to be able to do w ith language , the acts o f me a ning he wants to
pe r for m, can no longe r be achie ve d by s pe aking a nd lis te ning alone ; and
from this point on, r e ading and wr iting will make sense to him. But if the
re ading and wr iting are unr e late d to what he wants to me a n to the func ­
tional de mands that he is c o ming to make o f language , the n they will make
very little sense to him. T he y will r e main, as the y do fo r so many childre n,
is olate d and me aningle s s exercises. If we want to talk about ‘r e ading read-
iness\ we s hould re ally inte rpre t it in these s ocial- functional te rms . A child is
‘r e ady’ for the writte n me d ium whe n he be gins to use language in the
e cological settings to which wr iting is appropriate .
T he re are s ome pe ople who say that books are o n fhe way out, and that (he
writte n language is no longe r impor ta nt. As this stands they are ce rtainly
wrong; b ut they are ma king a valid point. The s poke n language is once moTe
coming into its o w n as s uming once again in our own society the honour able
place that it had in all of huma n his tory until the Eur o pe a n renaissance^ and
that in many s ocie tie s it has ne ve r lost* T his is slowly coming to be reflected
in e ducational thinking a nd practice ; te ache rs are more and more willing to
take the s poke n language seriously. But the change s tha t are taking place,
far from r e le gating the wr itte n language to a pos ition o f unimpor tance , are
pr oviding a new and he althy e nvir onme nt for the wr itte n language to func ­
tion in. It is a rathe r diffe re nt e nvir onme nt fr om that in which many o f us
ourselves le ar nt to re ad a nd write , and we have to be pre par e d to re apprais e
the s ignificance o f r e ading a nd wr iting in a world o f te le vis ion, tape recorders
and a resurgence o f oral lite ratur e . Bu t these things do no t de s troy the
ne e d for r e ading and wr iting; r athe r th^y create ne w conte xts for the m, with
new dime ns ions o f s ignificance . Illite racy is still a for m o f s e rvitude -
because o ur total de mands on language , bo th s poke n and w r iue n, go on
increas ing. It is not at all s urpris ing that de ve loping countr ie s give top
priority to the attainme nt o f literacy a mo ng childre n and adults .
F o r the s ame re as on it is als o not s urpris ing, whe n one thinks about it that
e xpe rience with Bre ak through Kas de mons tr ate d very clearly the value of
our continue d insistence o n seeing r e ading a nd wr iting in the br oade r
conte xt o f the le a r ning o f language as a whole . T he re is still a te nde ncy to
isolate r e ading and wr iting as if they had no thing to do with the mothe r
tongue ; as if they we re totally s e parate sk ills for which the child ba d no
re le vant prior knowle dge . But the mos t impor ta nt thing about writte n
language is that it is language ; and the mos t impor ta nt thing about writte n
 Breakthrough to literacy 207

Englis h is that it is Englis h. It is whe n r e ading a nd wr iting be come divorce d

from the rest o f the c hild’s language e xpe rie nce , and his language - le arning
e xpe rie nce , that they be come e mpty a nd me aningle s s chores.
I am ofte n as ked by teachers if it is possible to give a succinct account of
the essential nature o f language in te rms that are tr uly re le vant to ihe
e ducational process. It is no t easy to do- this, be caus e it me ans de par ting very
radically fr om the image s o f language that are presenced in our s choolbooks
and in the clas s room: not only fr om the olde r image , which was focuse d on
the mar ginalia o f language a nd gave about as good a picture of what
language is re ally like as a book o f e tique tte would give o f what life is really
like , but also fr om the ne we r one , which is focuse d on the me chanis ms of
language and re duces it to a set o f form al ope rations . We have to build up an
image o f language which e nable s u& to look at how pe ople actually do
communicate with one anothe r, and how they are all the time e xchanging
me anings and inte racting in me aningful ways. T o a ce rtain exte nt each one
o f us has to do this for himseJf by his own efforts , and by reference to his own
pe rs onal e xpe rie nce . Bu t we can get s ome he lp, pe r haps fr om the notions
a bout language that we uncons cious ly subscribe to because they are
e mbe dde d in the infor mal ways in which we talk about it, which is s ome thing
we do all the time .
We are always talking about talking, s aying things like *1 d id n ’t me an t h a t ’
‘Yo u have n’t ans we re d my que s tion1a nd *Were thos e his exact words ?'; and
such 'language about language ' e mbodie s volume s o f insights into the nature
and function o f language . Thes e ins ights , which are known in che trade as
‘folk linguis tics 1, are abs orbe d at an uncons cious level in the course o f
le ar ning the language and le a r ning the cultur e . F olk linguis tic notions , like
othe r folk ideas e ns hrine d in o ur s e mantic system, can be wildly wrong. But
they are ofte n right, a nd s ome time s conta in s ignificant tr uths which in our
more contrive d wis dom we have lost s ight of.
If we e x amine the pre conce ptions that are implicit in our everyday talk
about language we get a picture that is in some respects s urpris ingly accu-
rate> and in ways that are quite re le vant to the processes o f e ducation. T hink
o f ihe conce pt that is expressed by the word to m e an y in its ordinar y e ve ryday
use. It can be used o f pe ople , a nd o f language : ‘what doe s he m e a n ? ' ‘what
does that notice me an ?T. But it cannot be used o f m os t things . We do not ask
‘what does your watch me an?' - e ve n tho ug h we re adily ask ‘what doe s your
watch s ay? . T he for mal prope r tie s o f a s ymbolic system are not s pecifically
human, b u t the s e mantic ones are. On ly pe ople can me an. But they can d o it
in othe r ways than thr ough language , for e x ample by dancing or painting;
and the y can inves t s ymbols w ith me anings , as in ‘red me ans s top O n the
othe r ha nd, e ve n pe ople do not me an as a cons cious act, so the re is no us ual
way o f expressing an inte ntion to me an; we say ‘what s hall I s ay?1, but not
*what shall I mean?\
Now o ur me anings are e ncode d, or in folk te rminology ‘expres s ed, in
what we refer to a s ‘wor dings ’. A wording, trans late d into linguis tic te rms , is
a sentence s tructure o r clause s tructure or s ome othe r gr ammatical s tructure
208 Sociolinguis tics a nd e ducation

with lexical ke ms ( ‘words occupying the func tiona l role s that that structure
defines. An d we are we ll aware, not be cause we ar e linguis ts but be caus e we
are pe ople who have language , that this e nc oding o f me anings in wordings is
not jus t a s imple ma tc hing process. Yo u can ‘ke e p the me aning but change
the wor ding - although in fact, you ne ve r quite 'ke e p the me aning" whe n
you do this. Wha t happe ns is that you ke e p one kind o f me aning, but vary
anothe r.
T he wordmg. is s till not what we he ar; it has to be e ncode d all ove r again.
But this time there are two possible codes, a phonic and a graphic, o r a
s poke n and a writte n. Ag a in there is a rich fo lk linguis tic te rminology:
s ounds and letters, pr onouncing and s pe lling (in tr aditiona l Englis h lin­
guistics, the wor d/e a^r me ant ‘s peech s ound’ as we ll as ‘le tte r *).4Ho w do you
pr onounce it?’ and ^how do you s pell il? ’ are bo th que s tions tha t can be
as ked about a wora> or about any pie ce o f wor ding - a word is s imply the
chunk o f wording we are mos t re adily aware of.
So our folk linguis tic has, built into il, a cle ar conce ption o f language as a
three- level phe nome non, which is exactJy what it is. It consists o f me aning,
wording, a nd s ounding o r writing* We could re pre s e m the folk linguis tic
mode l like this:

M E A N IN G

Whe n linguis ts talk abo ut ftthe s e mantic sys te m1, ‘the le xicogrammadcaL (or
syntactic) s ys te m’a nd ‘the phonologic al s ys te m’ they are s imply re fe rring to
the me a ning the wo id ing and the s ounding; b u t cons ide ring the m, not as
sets of is olate d instances, as we us ually are whe n we talk abo ut these things
in dally Jife, but as a total p o t e n t ia l T his is the ma in diffe re nce be lwe e n the
folk linguis tic a nd the profe s s ional linguis tic perspectives: a linguis t is
inte re s te d not jus t in what i&said o r writte n o n a particular occas ion, but also
in what can be s aid o r writte n (the language as a s ys te m) and what is like ly to
be said or writte n unde r give n conditions of use.
Language is a system o f me anings : an ope n- e nde d range o f s e mantic
choices (hat re late closely to the social conte xts in which language is used.
Me a ning is e ncode d as wording; a nd wor ding in t ur n as s pe aking o r writing.
T his is a very abs tract conce ption; but it is exactly the conce ption o f language
that a child inte rnalize s in the course o f le ar ning his mothe r tongue , because
it is so faithfully re pre s e nte d in c u r or dinar y ways o f talking about language .
Mor e ove r the child is still working har d at building u p the system, all the
time adding to the pote ntial that he alr e ady has. O f course he does not
1knowt what language is in the sense o f be ing able to give a le cture on it; but
he is cons cious o f what he can do with it, and ofte n more intuitive ly aware of
what it is like than is an adult, who has long forgotte n the e fforts that he
 B re ak through to lite racy 209

hims e lf put into le ar ning it. A c hild’s unde r s tanding about language can be
seen in the ways in which he hims e lf talks about it, us ing ove r and ove r again
such words que s tion and ans w e r and w ord and m e an a nd s ay , and expre ­
ssions like ‘wha t’s this calle d? and ‘t ha t’s not what I me a nt.1
Teachers to whom we have made these points , whe n we have stressed the
importance o f what a child alr e ady knows about language , have s ome time s
re acte d by s aying in effect ‘Wh a i you say is fine for the clever one s , those
who have every advantage and are going to le arn anyway. Bwt it won’t do for
those that I work with. They have n’t got these ins ights ; in fact I s ome time s
wonde r if they know any language at at].' But this is to mis unde r s tand the
bur de n o f what we are saying. T his is not the place to take up the comple x
que s tions of ‘de ficie ncy’ the ory, compe ns ator y language pr ogr amme s and
the like ; Bre ak through doe s not assume, or pie c lude , any particular
s tandpoint on these issues (though the author s have the ir own views). But it
is precisely the childre n mos t like ly to fail, whate ve r the re as on, who have
the mos t to gain from building upon what they alr e ady know - a nd this
include s what they alre ady know about language .
It is not always easy to avoid ge tting lost in a maze of social and linguis tic
pre conce ptions which k a d one impe rce ptibly to the as s umption tha t c hil­
dr e n who have a diffe r e nt accent or a diffe r e nt grammar fr om o n e ’s own
the re fore have a speech pote ntial that is narrowe r in range a n d an unde r ­
s tanding o f language that is less de e p. But this is a false as s umption. Whe re
childre n arc like ly to s uffer is whe re there is a relative lack of continuity
betwee n the ir native cultur e a nd that o f the school, be cause the value s o f the
s chool, and the me anings tha t are typically e xchange d, may be re mote from
and in ce rtain ways oppos e d to the value s a nd the habits o f me a ning that are
fa milia r to the m. But this make s it all the more impor ta nt to e mphas ize what
continuity there is by s tarting fr om what is c ommon knowle dge to all. It is
re as onable to suppose that the gre ate r the cultur al gap (as things are)
be twe e n the out- of- school and the in- school e nvir onme nt o f a child, the
more impor ta nt it is to make e xplicit (he pos itive qualitie s o f the out-
of- school e nvir onme nt a nd to build on the m in the te aching process; if this is
true in ge ne ral, the n nowhe re is it more par ticular ly applicable than in the
re alm o f language .
There are m a n/ c h ild r e n, typically though no t e xclusive ly urban childr e n,
in Englis h- s pe aking countrie s , whose s oundings , wordings and e ve n me a n­
ings are ofte n mar ke dly diffe re nt fr om thos e o f the pe ople w ho te ach the m.
But they have the same linguis tic s ys te m and the same intuitive knowle dge
o f what the system is like . T he y have cons tructe d the s ame e difice , although
the conte nts of the rooms may be diffe r e nt. In this conte xt Bre ak through has
much to offe r, because while it places a high value on language it doe s not
insist on this or that particular/cmd of language . Bre ak through takes no sides
on the issue o f 'diale ct prime rs or n o t ?’ —be cause it has no prime rs . The
childr e n’s r e ading mate rial is what they have wr itte n themselves: not what
ihe te ache r has writte n at the ir dictation, in a prais e worthy but mis guide d
atte mpt lo put the c hild at the ce ntre o f the picture , but what they have
210 Sociolinguis tics a nd e duc ation

cons cructe d out o f the ir own linguis tic resources. He nce , B re ak through doe s
no t make knowle dge o f the s tandar d language a pre condition o f success in
r e ading a nd writing. But ne ithe r doe s it shelve the proble m* Ra the r , it make s
the le ar ning o f the s tandar d language a conc omita nt, a na tur a lconse que nce
o f the process of le a r ning to re ad and write . It as s ume s in othe r words ’ that
one o f the aims o f language e duc ation may be to de ve lop a c h ild ’s contr ol
ove r the s tandard language - w ithout in any way downgr ading his own form
o f the mothe r tongue .
In dis cus s ing B re ak through w ith teachers, we have some lime s found
ours e lve s uncomfor tably facing two dire ctions at once , caught as it were in
the crossfire be twe e n two extre me pos itions . On one side are thos e who
favour an e xtre me of s tructure : the rigid s tructuring o f the te aching s itu­
ation, in which clas s room inte raction is closely r e gulate d a nd the options are
‘clos e d . These s trict pe dagogical principle s may be what lie be hind the
e qually strict linguis tic principle s accor ding to which language is tre ate d as a
set o f rule s to be impar te d a nd obe ye d. (T his is the philos ophy o f those
e ditor s a nd s ecretaries who rewrite my Englis h accor ding to the ir rule s o f
gr ammar , giving me e ndless trouble c hanging it alt back into my own language
with my own pre fe rre d forms o f e xpre s s ion,) But the on« doe s not always
imply the othe r : s ome pe ople who are e ducational dove s are the fiercest o f
hawks in the ir attitude s to language .
On the othe r side are those who favour an e xtre me o f non- s tructure : the
e ducational pr inciple that I have referred to as *be ne vo!e nl in e r t ia ' accord­
ing to which, provide d ihe te ache r doe s not actually inte rfe re in any way in
what is going o n the n le ar ning will s ome how take place t Bre ak through is not
re ally at home in a s ituation o f e ithe r o f these extremes. It thrive s best in a
milie u that is child- centred but in which the te ache r functions as a guide ,
cr e ating s tructure with the he lp o f the s tude nts the ms e lve s . But it doe s not
de pe nd on the adoption o f any one set o f pe dagogical te chnique s or o f any
pa r ticular body o f me thodological principle s for the te aching of r e ading and
writing.
T he re is no do ubt that many o f our pr oble ms tn lite racy e duc ation are o f
o ur own making: not jus t ours e lve s as individuals , or even e ducators as a
profe s s ion, but ours e lve s as a whole * society, if you like . In part the
pr oble ms s te m from our c ultur a l attitude s to language . We take language all
to o s ole mnly - a nd yet not s eriously e nough. If we (a nd this include s
te ache rs ) can le arn to be a lot more s e rious about language , and at the same
time a gre at de al less s ole mn about it, the n we might be more re ady to
re cognize linguis tic success for what it is whe n we see it, a nd so do more to
br ing it about whe re it w ould othe rwis e fail to appe ar.
13
Language and social man
(Part 2)

In this final chapte r I s hall suggest some topics for e x plor ation by linguis ts o f
all ages. These are topics which can be followe d u p in var ious ways in an
e ducational conte xt: not only thr ough fur the r re ading, but als o by obs e r­
vations on the part o f an individua l or in s tudy groups ’ In many ins tance s
pupils in the class can be e nlis te d to heJp in the inquir y, for e xample by
ke e ping a language dia r y or by noting down things they he ar s aid by a s mall
br othe r or sister; in this way language be comcs an e xciting are a for clas­
s room research* T he issues are one s ^which te achers have fo und to be
re le vant to the ir own work, a nd which can be inve s tigate d in the course of
one ’s daily life, thr ough obs e r vation and que s tioning, without the ne e d for a
yearns leave of abs ence and a research founda tion grant. T he suggested
topics are the following:
1 Language de ve lopme nt in young childr e n
2 Language and s ocialization
3 Ne ighbour hood language profile
4 Language in the life o f the individual
5 Language a nd s ituation
6 Language a nd ins titutions
7 Language attitude s
In the succe e ding sections I discus s these topics and put for war d some ideas
for que s tions that might be purs ue d. Ma ny more could o f course be adde d.
T he ide as that lie be hind the m, the bas ic conce ption o f language as a
re s ource for living and o f its ce ntral place in the e ducational process, have
be e n de ve lope d, e nriche d a nd made accessible to teachers by Doughty,
Pearce and T hor nto n in the ir outs tanding programme o f mate rials L an ­
guage in use (1971),

1 Language development in young children

Any o ne w ith a young child in the family ca n make hims e lf a positive
nuis ance trying to re cord its s pe e ch, not only by clutte r ing up the hous e with
conce ale d micr ophone s and othe r e quipm e nt but als o by accumulating vast
quantitie s o f unproce s s e d tape . (It take s ten hours to lis te n to te n hours of
tape , and anything up to five hundr e d hours to trans cribe it .) T he mos t useful
piece o f research e quipme nt is a no te book and pe ncil; and the mos t impor ­
212 Sociolinguis tics a n d e ducation

tant research quaJification (as in many othe r areas ) is ihe ability to liste n to
language ^ which is not difficult to acquire a nd yet is s urpris ingly s e ldom
de ve lope d. T his me ans the ability to atte nd to the actual words that are be ing
s poke n, as dis tinct from the us ual kind o f lis te ning which involve s the
automatic de coding and proce s s ing o f what is s 事 id. T o put it anothe r way
'lis te ning to language ’ me ans lis te ning to the wor ding, or else the s ounding
(if the intere st is in the phone tics ) ins te ad of only fas te ning on the me aning.
T he s urpris ing thing is that by le ar ning to do this one be come s a be tte r
lis te ne r all r ound: in atte nding to his language , one gains a more accurate
impre s s ion o f what the s pe ake r meant*
Skulking be hind the furniture a nd wr iting dow n what a s mall chitd says,
and also what is said to and ar ound him, with a br ie f noce on what he is doing
a i the time (thi^ is essential)^ is a us eful source o f ins ight - pr ovide d it is noi
carrie d to extremes. Pupils who have s mall br othe rs and sisters can do some
valuable research he re ; the olde r one s can ke e p accurate re cords, while the
younge r ones, though the y cannot be expe cte d to do very muc h fie ld work
will make up for this by virtue o f the intrins ic inte re s t o f the ir o w n glosses
and the ir inte rpre tative comme nts .
Wha t are we looking for? The re are various kinds o f unde r s tanding to be
gaine d from lis te ning to a child; not in the r omantic sense, as a fount of
intuitive w is dom- w e s hall ne ve r know whe the r he possesses s uch wis dom or
n o u because whate ve r he has dis appe ars in the process o f his le a r ning to
communicate it to us —but as a young huma n be ing s truggling to grow up,
linguis tically as in othe r ways. We can see what are the functions for which he
is building up a linguis tic system, a nd how these functions relate to his
survival a nd his s ocial wellbeing* T he re is no ne e d for an exact phone tic
re cord - that is s ome thing to be left to the specialist - a nd no ne e d to wail
until we hear comple te sentence s o r eve n re cognizable words o f Englis h.
T he child o f nine to e ighte e n months will have a range of vocal s ignals that
are me aningful and unde r s tandable to those a r o und h im s uch as Nig e l’s
nandnana me aning 'give me that!'; in othe r words, he will have a range o f
m e anings , which de fine what he can do in the var ious spheres o f action to
which his vocal resources are applie d (see the set o f initial functions in
chapte r 1, pp. 1^- 20).
Wha t the child doe s with language , at this early stage is all the time
s haping his o w n image of what language is. At a ce rtain point* r ound about
e ighte e n months old, he will aba ndon his labor ious atte mpt to work thr ough
half a million years o f h um a n e volution cre ating his own language , and
s hor tcircuii the process by 'going a dult ' and taking ove r the language he
hears a r ound him. T he impe tus for this move is still a functional one ; the
de ma nds he make s on language are r apidly incre as ing, a nd his own ‘do-
it- yours e lf system can no longe r me e t the m. His language is now fur the r
s tre ngthe ne d a nd e nr iche d as a re source for living and le ar ning, by the
addition of a whole new range o f s e mantic choice s; and his image o f what
language is> and what it can do, is e nriche d corre s pondingly. Wit h this image
he come s re ady e quippe d to school; a nd the sad thing is that so few teachers
 Language and s ocial man (Part 2) 213

in the past have e ithe r s hare d the image or e ve n s ought to unde r s tand what,
in fact, the child can alr e ady do with language whe n he come s to the m, which
is a very great de al. T o lo ok into the func tiona l or igins of language at the
be ginning o f the de ve lopme nt process is lo go a long way towar ds a s ym­
pathe tic appr e ciation of what language me ans to a child whe n he first sets
foot in s chool.
Points to cons ide r
a Ve ry young childre n;
Wh a t are the functions for which the very young child first be gins to le arn
language ?
Wh a t me anings does he le ar n to express, within these functions ? Wha t
s ort of me anings can he re s pond to (e.g. ‘Do you want • . / ) ?
Wh o does he (a) talk to (b) lis te n t o ? In what type s o f s ituation?
Wh a t kind o f re inforce me nt doe s he get for his e fforts ? Wh o unde rs tands
him mos t re adily? Has he an inte r pr e te r (e .g. an olde r br othe r o r s ister)?
b Childr e n nearer s chool age:
Wh a t are the functions for which the child is now using language ?
Is it pos s ible , in fact, to re cognize from a mong the mass o f particular
ins tance s any ge ne ral type s o f use that might be s ignificant: le ar ning about
the mate rial e nvir onme nt, le a r ning about s ocial r e lations and cultur al
value s contr olling be haviour, r e s ponding e motionally and so o n?
Wha t sort o f difficultie s does he e ncounte r ? Ar e the re things he cannot
make language do for him ?
Wh a t are the functions for which he is now be ginning to ne e d the written
language , a nd wr iting as a me d ium ? This is the key que s tion for the child
first coming into s chool. Will le ar ning to re ad and write make sense lo
him, matching his e xpe rie nce o f what language is and what it is for* so that
he sees it as a me ans o f e nlar ging that e xpe rie nce ; o r will it seem to be a
me aningle s s exercise which is unre late d lo any of his own uses of la n­
guage ?

2 Language a nd s ocialization

This topic is clos e ly re late d to the las t; but here the focus o f atte ntion is
s hifted away from the le ar ning of language as a whole o nto the role of
language in re lation io the c hild as "s ocial man\ a nd the ways in which
language serves io initiate the c hild into the social o r d e r
Eve ry child is br ought u p in a cultur e , a nd he has to learn the patte rns o f
that culture in the process o f be c oming a me mbe r o f it. The pr incipal me ans
whe re by the cultur e is made available to him is thr ough language : language
is no t the only channe l, but it is the mos t s ignificant one . Eve n the mos t
intimate o f pe rs onal re lations hips , tha t o f the child with its mothe r , is from
an early age me diate d thr ough language ; a nd language plays some part in
practically all his social le arning.
214 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

Be r ns te in’s wor k has provide d the key to an unde r s tanding not me re ly o f

the part playe d by language in the home life and the school life o f the child
but, more s ignificantly, o f how language come s to play this c e ntr al part; and
hence o f how it happe ns lh a t s ome childre n fail to mee t the de ma nds that are
made by the s chool on the ir linguis tic capacitie s , no t because these capacitie s
are la cking but be cause they have typically be e n de ploye d in ce rtain ways
rathe r than in others.
T he type s o f social conte xt which Be r ns te in ide ntifie s as critical to the
process o f the child's s ociaJization we re me ntione d in chapte r 1, p. 30: the
re gulative , the ins tr uctional, the imaginative or innovative and the inter-
pe rs onal. Thes e are cle arly re late d to the de ve lopme nta l functions o f Ian*
guage as I outline d the m: ins tr ume ntal, re gulatory and so on. But whe re as I
was as king ‘what are the ke y linguis tic functions thr ough which the child first
le arns language?\ the unde r lying que s tion be ing a bo ut language de ve lop­
me nt and the natur e o f language itself, Be rn stein is as king V h a t are the key
linguis tic conte xts thr oug h which the child le arns the c uiiure V , with the
e mphas is o n s ocial de ve lopme nt a a d cultur al trans mis s ion. For e x ample , the
ways in which a pa r e nt contr ols the be ha vio ur o f a child re ve al for the child a
gre at de al about statuses a nd roles, the structure o f author ity and moraJ and
othe r value s in the culture .
T he re are various pos s ible line s of approach if one is inquir ing into the
part playe d by language in s ignificant s ocial conte xts . One inte re s ting type of
inve s tigation was de vis e d and car r ie d o ut by Be r ns te in a nd He nde r s on
(1 9 7 3), w ho to o k a numbe r o f s pe cific tasks involve d in br inging up a child,
for e x ample ‘te aching childre n e ve ryday tasks s uch as dre s s ing or us ing a
knife and for k Show ing the m how things w o r k ' ‘dis ciplining the m and
‘de aling with the m whe n the y are unha ppy and as ke d mothe rs how much
more difficulty the y th o ug ht pare nts w ould have in carrying o ut these tasks if
the y had no language with which to do it - imagining, for e x ample , that they
were de af and dumb. T he ans we rs do n o t >of cours e , te ll us what the mothe rs
actually say to the ir childr e n on these occas ions ; but the y give an ide a o f the ir
or ie nta tion towards diffe r e nt func tions o f language , a nd the re tur n out to be
ce rtain s ignificant diffe re nce s which go with s ocial class.
It is not impos s ible to e x a mine actual s ample s o f the language used in
par ticular ins tance s o f the type s o f s ituation tha t are s ignificant for the c hild’s
s ocialization; and to ask what the child might have le ar nt about the culture
from the things tha t were s aid to him. F o r e x ample , a fo r m o f contr ol s uch as
‘you mus tn't touch things tha t d o n ’t be long to y o u1 carries a gre at de al of
pote ntial infor mation about private pr ope r ty and owne r s hip. Natur ally one
or tw o s uch re marks by the ms e lve s w ould no t te ll him very cntich; b ut fr om
the ir cons tant varie d r e pe tition and r e infor c e me nt he w ould le ar n a Lot
a bo ut the cultur e of which he ha d involuntar ily take n o ut me mbe rs hip. An d
the inte re s ting point is that this le a r ning wo uld have take n place not only
without ins tr uction, b ut without or ganize d knowle dge be hind it thr ough the
mos t or dinar y eve ryday uses of language in or dinar y e ve ryday kinds o f
s ituation.
 Language and s ocial ma n (Part 2) 215

F o r a te ache r there is the additional que s tion o f the role ofla ngua ge in the
clas s room —or r athe r roles, since the s chool is a comple x ins titution and
language has many diffe re nt parts to play in it. T he ke y que s tion, pe rhaps , is
this: to the exte nt tha t the s chool is a new cultur e into which the child has
be e n socialize d (a nd, as we have seen, this make s gre ate r de ma nds on s ome
childre n than it does on othe rs ), is the actual patte rn o f language use in the
daily life o f the s chool ade quate to the s ocializing (as k? If it is not - a nd in
ma ny instances at pre s e nt it almos t ce r tainly is no t - what can be done to
re me dy this s ituation?
A study o f the use o f language in the clas s room may re ve al s ome o f the
as s umptions that ar e made by the te ache r about the s chool as a social
ins titution - as s umptions about the nature o f e ducational processes, about
teacher- pupil r e lations hips , about the value s accor de d to obje cts , the ir
schemes o f clas s ification, and the like - while at the same time s howing that
the childr e n get little he lp in be c oming aware o f these things , or in le ar ning
the r e le vant schemes of social r e lations a n d s ocial values* O r on. the othe r
h a ndTit might tur n o ut that the s chool provide s very ade quate me ans for
making s uch matte rs e xplicit: again, not by te aching the m, but by e ncour ag­
ing and de ve loping a use of language that is cultur ally rich and s ocialiy
e nlighte ne d. Eithe r way, the re is muc h to be gaine d from watching language
at work in the s ocializing process.

Points to cons ide r

a Wh a t part doe s language play in the s ocialization o f the child?
Wha t types o f s ituation are like ly to be s ignificant at the pre- school stage
(e .g. lis te ning to stories, having me als ’ playing with othe r childr e n)? Ca n
these be seen as concre te ins tance s o f Be r ns te in's four ‘critical contexts
for s ocialization ’
Wh a t might the child le ar n fr o m these s ituations , about s ocial re lations ,
social value s, the s tructure o f knowle dge and the like ?
How would he le arn these things - fr om what kinds o f use o fla ng ua g e (for
e xample , in game s with a dults my t u r n . . . y o u r turn , le a ding to a conce pt
o f a particular kind o f role r e lation, w ith a privile ge that is s hare d and
e xe rcis e d by tur ns )?
Wh a t de mands on his own linguis tic abilitie s , in te rms of the de ve lopme nt
functions o f language , are made by these s ituations (e .g. ve rbal games,
te asing, he lping mothe r in the kitc he n going s hopping co mpe ting with
othe r childr e n)?
b How do the forms of the child's s ocialization fin d linguis tic e xpre s s ion in
his mode s of be having a n d le ar ning?
Wh a t diffe re nce s appe a r be twe e n childr e n fr om diffe re nt culture s , such
as Britis h, We s t India n, Pakis ta ni? Be twe e n childr e n fr om diffe r e nt s ub­
culture s , s uch as social class groups within the native Br itis h popula tion?
Ho w are these expres s ed in language ? (F o r e xample , diffe re nt conce pts o f
216 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

family r e lations hips , expres s ed partly by diffe re nt mode s o f addre s s .)

(T he point is not that s uch groups spe ak diffe r e nl language s or diale cts ;
the e mphas is s hould be on the way they use language , on the me anings
tha t are expre s s e d.)
Wh a t is the s ignificance for the s chool o ft h e c hild’s pre s chool e xpe rie nce ,
seen in te rms o f patte rns o f language us e ? Ar e ce rtain ways o f us ing
language in s chool like ly to be less fa milia r to him , a nd if so can they be
made e xplicit in a ma nne r chat is like ly to he lp?

3 Neighbourhood language profile

T he r e has never be e n any lack o f inte re s t in the local varie ties o f Englis h
s peech, arid nume r ous accounts o f the vocabular y and pr onunciation o f
diffe r e nt diale cts have appe ar e d s ince the Eliza be tha n p e r io d .
Sys te matic linguis tic s tudy o f rural diale cts be gan about a hundr e d years
ago, in France , Ge r many a nd Switze rland; since that time diale ct surveys
have be e n unde r take n in many countr ie s ranging from China to the Unite d
States. These are de s igne d to s how the pa r ticular characte ris tics of the
s peech in e ach locality and to trace its de r iva tion fr om an e ar lie r stage of the
language .
Dia le ct s tudie s are bas ed on the as s umption, which is largely bor ne o ut in
practice, that there are homoge ne ous speech communitie s : (he pe ople o f
one locality all s peak alike* T he no tio n o f a ‘dia le c t is de fine d on this
as s umption; 'the diale ct o f Little by ' me ans the s peech that one le arns by
virtue o f growing up as an inha bita nt o f Little by, The re s e arche r typically
searches o ut the olde s t inha bita nt, a mong thos e who have live d in the village
all the ir lives* and take s his s peech as re pre s e ntative , r athe r than that o f
younge r pe ople or o f thos e who have move d into the area fr om outs ide ,
whos e speech will pr oba bly not be *pure Little by 1.
Re ce ntly, and par ticular ly in the Unite d State s atte ntion has tur ne d to
urban diaJe cU; and it has be e n fo und o ut tha t the tr aditional conce pts of
diale ctology do not hold good for large indus tr ial cities. In one respect, o f
cours e, this is obvious : e ve ryone knows that the inha bitants o f a city Like
Lo ndo n do not all s pe ak alike . T he r e is not only ge ographical va r ia tio n
dis tinguis hing the s peech o f one iocaiUy fr om that o f a nothe r - south- east
Lo ndo n, north Lo ndo n and so o n - but als o s ocial var iation, dis tinguis hing
the s pe e d o f one s o c ial class from that o f anothe r . But the patte rn of urban
diale cts is much more comple x that this . Ou r unde r s tanding o f the natur e o f
city speech is largely due to ihe work o f Willia m La bov, whos e pione e r
s tudie s of Ne w Yo r k s pe e ch gave a radically diffe re nt pictur e o f the diale ct
structure o f an indus tr ial community .
Labov showe d up the e xtraor dinar y comple xity o f the social s tr atification;
not only in the sense that the re are s ome very minute dis tinctions s e parating
diffe r e nt speech varie tie s , but als o, more impo r ta ntly tha t such dis tinctions
may have gre at s ocial s ignificance in the c ommunity. The inte re s ting finding
is tha t, while the typical Ne w Yo r ke r is very incons is te nt in his own s peech
 Language a nd s ocial ma n (Part 2) 217

habits , s witching fr om one pr onunciation to a nothe r accor ding to the s itu­

ation, a nd par ticular ly accor ding to the de gre e of cons cious a tte ntion to
s peech that is involve d, he is almos t e ntire ly cons is te nt in his judge me nt o f
the speech o f othe r pe ople , and can be excremely sens itive to the slightest
var iation in. what he hears. He is quite unawar e tha t s uch var iation occurs
w it hin his own s peech, although he may be s ubcons cious ly tr ouble d by ihe
fact; but he re s ponds to s ubtle diffe re nce s a nd change s in the s peech o f
othe r s , and uses the infor mation to ide ntify the ir social status . Labov found,
for ins tance , that if he playe d a tape re cording o f jus t one s e nte nce lo a
s ample o f Ne w Yor ke rs , not o nly wo uld thos e who he ar d it agree in large
me as ure about what sort o f e mployme nt the s pe ake r the y we re lis te ning to
would be best fitte d for, but als o, if he ‘doc tor e d’ the tape a t jus t one point -
alte ring it in a way which w o uld be e quiva le nt, in Lo ndo n te rms , to dr opping
jus t one h - the subje cts r ate d the s ame s pe ake r one notch lowe r on the ir
e mployme nt scale. La b o v conclude d from these inve s tigations tha t an urban
s peech community (unJike a rural one ) is not so much a gr oup of pe ople who
s pe ak in a ce rtain way, but rathe r a group of pe ople w ho share the same
pre judice s about how othe rs s peak.
If the towns man doe s vary in his s pe e ch habits the var iation is normally
not random, but re late s to the conte x t o f s ituation. He may s witch be twe e n a
ne ighbour hood diale ct a nd s ome for m o f s tandard s pe e ch, pe r haps with
s ome inte r me diate de gre e s ; but the choice , though pr obably e ntir e ly s ub­
cons cious , is like ly to de pe nd on who he is s pe aking to what s ort o f
occas ion it is and what kind o f e nvir onme nt the y are in - in othe r words , on
the fie ld, mode and te nor of di^cours ^, as we de fine d the s e e a r lie r T hat is to
say, his diale ct s witching is actually an e xpre s s ion of re gis te r var iation. T his
phe nome non is by no me ans confine d to urban commumtie s ; in fact it was
first s tudie d in de tail in village s a nd s mall towns , for e x ample by Jo hn
Gum pe r z, who worke d in countrie s as diffe re nt fr om e ach othe r as In d ia and
Nor way. But it is characte ris tic o f the city dwe lle r tha t he does not ke e p to
one cons tant set of speech habits. His pr onunc ia tion, at leasts is like ly to
vary accor ding to circums tance s ; and eve n thos e w h o as adults , d o not
dis play any notice able va r ia tion in the ir speech have almos t ce rtainly move d
away in ce rtain respects fr om the ne ighbour hood diale ct they le ar ni as
chitdre n.
Ne ighbour hood s pe e ch patte rns in the city ar e always liable to be c o m ­
plicate d by move me nts o f p o pula tio n as is ha ppe ning in Englis h citie s wilh
the arrival o f large gr oups o f immigrants , so that e ve n the ne ighbour hood is
no t always a homoge ne ous &pce ch unit. Ne ve rthe le s s ne ighbour hood speech
has a very powe r ful influe nce a mo ng childr e n in the ir o w n peer gr oup; it is
r e markable that childre n coming into a ne ighbour hood from outs ide eve n if
the y o utnumbe r those fr om the locality, te nd to grow up s pe aking the local
language , so that the conce pt o f a ne ighbour hood diale ct is a valid and
impor ta nt one . It is the language of the childr e n's pe e r groups in the street,
the park and late r o n in the s chool playgr ound; and it serves for the child as
his badge o f me mbe rs hip in the cultur e . It s hould be adde d that we still know
 218 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

very Httle about the linguis tic characte ris tics o f c hild r e ns pe e r gr o up
diale cts which s how a numbe r o f special pe culiaritie s some o f which are
highly s ignificant for a n unde r s tanding o f how language s change .

Points to cons ide r

a Is it pos s ible to ide ntify a ne ighbour hood diale ct in your ar e a?

Wo u ld the re be ge ne ral agre e me nt on what is the characte ris tic speech o f

the ne ighbour hood?
How s pe cifically can it be tie d to a particular ar e a? Is it, fo r e x ample
Ho m e countie s ? Lo ndo n? South- eas t Lo n d o n ? Ca tfo r d? Br o w nhill Ro a d
are a?
T a king some s uch locality, pe r haps inte r me diate in size, what is notice ­
able a nd dis tinctive about the s peech habits, in te rms o f gr a mma r , vo-
cabulary o r pr o nunc ia tio n? (T he be s t way to find o ut is to Listen to
yours e lf imitating the ne ighbour hood speech. In doing so you pr oba bly
produce a caricature r athe r than a photogr aphic like ne s s ; b ut a caricature
exagge rate s precisely the fe ature s that we in fact find dis tinctive . D o you
find yours e lf s aying ‘a c uppa t*ea\ *in the pfark\ with t a n d p affr icate d at
the be ginning o f a stressed s yllable ? If so this is obvious ly a notice able
fe ature o f the diale ct tho ug h pr obably less pr onounce d than you yours e lf
make it appe ar .)
How wide s pre ad is e ach o f the par ticular fe ature s that e nte r into the
pictur e ? (Some will be confine d to the imme diate locality, othe rs wUl be
characte ris tic o f the whole city o r re gion.)

b Ar e there notice able diffe re nce s of s peech w it hin the ne ighbour hood? it
so: Ar e the re social class diffe re nce s ? Ot h e r s ubcultur al diffe re nce s (e .g.
be twe e n native and immigr a nt gr oups )? Ge ne r a tiona l diffe re nce s ?
Ins titutiona l diffe re nce s (e .g. be twe e n one s chool a nd anothe r )?
Do all childre n be gin by le ar ning the same type o f s pe e ch? {If so, this is
pr obably the mos t mar ke dly diffe r e ntiate d type* the varie ty that is mos t
specific to the locality in que s tion; a nd it is this to which the te rm
^ne ighbourhood diaJe ct' is mos t strictly applica ble .)
Do a dult a nd adole s ce nt spe ake rs typically us e more than one varie ty? If
so, unde r what circums tance s ? Whe n d o the y s witch from one to anothe r ,
a nd why?
Ca n the la ng ua g e profile* o f the ne ighbour hood be re late d to the social
s tructure ?

c Wh a t is the re lation o f the ne ighbour hood s pccch to ‘s tandar d Englis h1?

Is the ne ighbour hood s peech its e lf a fo r m of s tandard Englis h, an *acce nt1
r athe r than a diale ct in the strict sense o f the te r m?
Wh a t are its limits o f tole r ance ? Is it acce ptable in s chool?
Do adults (a) re cognize the de s irability o f us ing, and (b) the ms e lve s
actually use, a for m o f speech that is clos er to s tandar d Englis h? If so
 Language a nd s ocial ma n (Par t 2) 219

whe n do they us e it? Ho w d o they le arn it? Ar e there speakers who do not
le ara it and if so what are the cons e que nce s for the m?

4 Language in the life of tbe individual

It is surpris ingly difficult to get any cle ar impre s s ion o f what we actually do
w ith language in the course o f our daily lives. If we we re as ke d to make up
o ut o f o ur heads a linguis tic re cor d for the day, mos t o f us wo uld be at a
comple te loss to re cons truct what was actually s aid to us a nd what we
ours e lve s s aid - le t alone w hy we s aid s ome o f the things we did say.
Ye t the d a y ’s language make s up a s ignificant part o f the total expe rience
o f a typical huma n beings whe the r a dult o r child. It can be a us e ful as well as
e nte r taining exercise to inve s tigate how a child s pe nds a typical day, as far as
us ing language is conce rne d: wha t he says, what is s aid to and ar ound him,
a nd als o what he re ads a nd what he write s , if these are applicable . (It can also
be illuminating to look into how one s pe nds one 's own linguis tic day.)
One te chnique that has be e n us e d is tha t o f the la n g u a g e dia r y ’. T his is
exactly what the name implie s : an account o f Ih e day’s linguis tic doings , in
which are re corde d in as muc h de tail as pos s ible the language activities o fthe
da y ’ s howing the time s pan, (he type o f language e ve nt and some obs e r­
vations on the language used. T he re cord mig ht contain no more than e ntrie s
like : 8:30- 8:35 A t the ne w s age nts : buying ne ws pape r, tr ans actional d ia ­
logue , s e lf and ne ws age nt; s tructure of language eve nts : (a ) gre e ting (b )
trans action, (c ) c omme nt on we athe r, (d) vale diction. T he actual text might
have be e n s ome thing like the following:
Mor ning, T om!
Go o d mor ning to you, sir!
Have you got a Guard ian le ft this mor ning?
Yo u ’re lucky; it's the last one . B it brighte r today, by the looks o f it.
Ye s , we could do with a bit of a dr y s pe ll.You got change for a pound?
Ye s , ple nty o f change ; he re you are. An y t h in g else today?
No, that's all jus t now, T om. Be seeing you.
Min d how you go.
Childr e n can be as ke d to ke e p language diarie s , noting down ins tance s o f
language use at home a nd in school. The k in d o f obs e r vation they can make
邛 ill, o f cours e, de pe nd o n the age gr oup; but once the conce pt has be e n
unde r s tood it doe s not much matte r wha t the for ma t is - any fo r m o f
record- keeping is appr opr iate . Fr om accumulate d s ample s o f this kind one
builds up a picture o f type s o f inte r action a mong individua ls ; and this, in
turn, brings out s ome thing o f the comple x patte rns o f daily life as live d in a
par ticular community in a particular cultur e .
In a community whe r e the re is diale ct s witching, the diary can re cord the
circums tance s unde r which diffe r e nt varie tie s o f s pe e ch are e mploye d* us ing
cate gorie s s uch as "ne ighbourhood* a nd Standard*. Language diarie s have in
fact mainly be e n us e d in multilingua l s ituations , to show how the diffe re nt
220 Sociolinguis tics a nd e ducation

language s figure in the lives o f individual me mbe rs c f the community: which

language d o they he ar on r adio or in the cine ma, in which language doe s one
s peak to one 's wife or hus band, cons ult che doctor , fill up official forms , do
the s hopping, a nd so on. B u t the same principle applie s in ‘muhidia le c ta l,
communitie s , whe re the language diary helps to make one aware of some o f
the social comple xitie s o f e ve ryday activities. (It is eas ie r to start by noting
e xample s o f othe r pe ople 's language be ha viour be fore atte mpting to be
one 's own djar is t.)
There are various ways o f re cording language be haviour, which essen­
tially resolve the ms e lve s into four: one can re cord s ounds , wordings , me a n­
ings or registers. Re cor ding s ounds , that is, giving accurate accounts of
pr onuncia tion, is a task fo r the s pecialist, a lthough we are all ama te ur
phone ticians whe n n come s to re acting lo othe r pe ople 's accents, and a few
key fe ature s can ofte n be ide ntifie d as indice s o f diale ct var iation. Re cording
wordings me ans taking down in full the actual words that are us e d; (his can
be done with a note book and pe ncil, e s pe cially with the aid o f s hor thand, but
als ov give n s ufficie nt practice, in longhand. Re co r ding me anings me ans
paraphr as ing and precis- ing what is s aid as one note s it down. These three
ways o f re cording language corr e s pond to the three levels o f language itself,
the levels o f s ound, of for m (gr ammar and vocabular y) and o f me aning;
hence cach o f the thre e is conce r ne d with a diffe r e nt aspect o f linguis tic
reality. Wit h a tape r e cor de r , o f cours e one can obta in a 'photographic*
image o f the whole , and process it at any level one like s ; but wor king with a
tape re corde r te nds to re strict one to tlie less inte re s ting uses o f language ,
those whe re the participants r e main re lative ly static, a nd it is also liable to
be come s ome what obs e s s ive , so o n the whole in linguis tic jo ur nalis m it is
pr obably be tte r to reJy on a no te book a nd pe ncil, co mbine d with o ne ’s own
intuitio n about what is impor tant and what can he le ft out - an m luit io n that
is notably lacking in tape re corde rs .
For ce rtain purpos e s it is ve ry us e ful to re cord the actual wordings ,
particularly in s tudying the par t playe d by language in the life of a child.
He re is an extract from an account o f a linguis tic ‘day in the life o f Nige l at
two and a half years old: the dr amatis pe rs onae here are Nige l, his mothe r ,
his fathe r and his aunt:

N Yo u wanl a bis cuit < 2 >

A Do you want a bis cuit? <2 >
N Ye [very high le v e l tone]
M Have you was he d your hands ? < 2 >
A Come , < 1 > I’ll he lp you < 1 >
N Yo u want Mu m m y to he lp you < 2 >
A Mu m m y ’s busy < 1 >
N Yo u want Daddy to he lp you < 2 >
A Shall I . . ? ⼀一
F No < 1 > it ’s all right, < 3 > Fll go w llh him < 3 > [T hey go]
N actions to vvords^ Mor e wate r < 2 > , . . turn the t a p o n < 2 > . . ,
 Language and s ocial man (Par t 2) 221

pull the plug out <2 > [re iurning] . . . you want to have half o f Da ddy's
bis cuit a nd Da ddy have the othe r ha lf < 2 > •. . o h you d id n't roil your
sleeves down < 1>
F Oh you d id n ’t roll your sleeves dow n! <1 >
N Yo u roll the m < 2 > [does s o ] . . . whe re 's the bis cuit <2 > [takes ii and
eats ] ,*, the tr ain picture you tore up< 1 > . . , (hat was very ba d < 1 > .. *
you want anothe r bis cuit <2 > ., . want to have h a lf of Da d d y 9s biscuit
<2 > . . . wa nt lo br e a k it < 2 >
f All rights < 3 > . , this is ihe last one <1 >
The numbe r s in angle bracke ts s how che intona tio n patte rns , which in
Englis h, as it happe ns , are an impor tant cleme nc in {he wording, though they
are not s hown in our or thogr aphy; thos e occurring here are < 1 > falling
tone . < 2 > rising cune> < Z > falling- ristng rone, and < 3 > ha] f- rising tone.
The bold type indicate s the word o r words on which the tone ⼘卜made
pr omine nt. The conve rs ation is quite tr ivial in itseff, but it re veals a numbe r
of things about the child's use o f language . Nige l happe ns at this stage to
refer to hims e lf as jo w ; also, he uses a tone e nding on a rise, < 2 > or <_2 >.
whe n the language funotion is pragmatic (ins tr ume ntal or re gulatory), and a
faJting tone othe rwis e . T he passage happe ns to illus trate all the three main
types o f pragmatic function: ins tr ume ntafyow w ant a bis c uit, re gulatory
w ant M um m y to he lp y o u , a nd r e gulatory in the special sense o f as king
pe rmis s ion turn the tap on (‘may I?\ though In fact pe rmis s ion is as sume d
and the patte rn come s to me an s imply *r m going to '). Inte rpos e d with the
domina nt motive o f obta ining the bis cuit are various nonpr agmatic e le me nts
with the ir own functions , he uris tic (r e he ar s ing a mor al )udge me nt) and
pe r s ona ⼘卜
infor mative . Whe n one e xamine s ihe w a r ding closely, chere is a
gre at de al to be le arnt from a s imple exchange o f this kind, about the very
essential part that is playe d by ordinar y e ve ryday language in the s ocial­
ization of the child.
Howe ve r, for many purpos e s it is e nough to re cord the 're gis te r' that is
b e in g us e d; a n d he r e the c o n c e p t s o f 4field\ ‘t e n o r ’ a n d 4m o d e 1 p r o v id e a
v a lu a b le fr a m e w o r k fo r g iving in fo r m a t io n a b o u t la n g u a g e us e in as s uccinct
a vvay as po s s ib le .

1 Field^ The kind t>f la ngua ge we use varie s , as we s h o uld e xpe ct, a cc or d­
ing to wha t we are d o ing . In d iffe r ing conte xts , we t e nd to sele ct diffe r e nt
words and diffe r e nt gr ammatical patte rns —s imply be cause we are expres ­
sing diffe re nt kinds o f me aning. AN we ne e d a d d to this , in or de r to clarify
the notion of register, is that the ‘me a nings ’ that are involve d are a part of
what we are doing; or rathe r, they ar e pari of the expre s s ion o f wha( we are
doing. In othe r words, one aspect o f (he field o f dis cours e h s imply the
s ubje ct matte r; we talk about diffe re nt things , a nd the re fore use diffe re nt
w o r d s fo r d o in g s o. I f th is w a s a ll t h e r e w a s t o it a n d t h e fie ld o f d is c o ur s e
was only a que s tion n f s ubje ct matte r , it wo uld har dly ne e d s aying; but, in
fact, 'w h a t wc ar c t a lk in g a b o u t ' has to be s e e n as a s pe c ia l cas e o f a mor e
genera! conce pt’ tha t of 'whai we are do ing o r ‘what is going on. within
222 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

which the language is playing a p a r t / It is (his broade r conce pt that is

referred to as the ‘fie ld o f discourse*. If, for e x a mple , the fie ld o f discourse is
football* the n no matte r whe the r we are playing it or discussing it ar ound a
table we are like ly to use ce r tain linguis tic for ms which reflect (he football
context. But the two are es s e ntially diffe re nt kinds o f activity, a nd this is
clearly re fle cte d in the language : if we are actually playing we are unlike ly to
waste o ur br e ath re fe rring e xplicitly to the pe rs ons and obje cts in the game .
This diffe re nce , be twe e n the language o f playing football and the language
of discussing football, is also a re fle ction o f che ‘mode of dis cours e '; see
be low.
T he ‘fie ld’ the re fore , refers to what the par ticipants in the conte xt of
s ituation are actually engage d in doing, like *buying*selling a ne ws pape r1 in
our e xample above . T his is a more ge ne ral conce pt than that o f s ubje ct
matte r, and a more us e ful one in pre s e nt conte xt since we may not
actually be talk ing abo ut e ithe r buying a nd s e lling o r ne ws pape rs . We ma ybe
talking about the we athe r; but that doe s not me an that the fie ld of discourse
is me te orology —talking about the we athe r is par t o f the strategy of buying
and selling.
2 T enor, The language we use varies accor ding to the level o f formality,
of te chnicality, and so on. Wha t is Ih e var iable unde r lying this type of
dis tinction? Es s entiaJly, it is the role r e lations hips in the s ituation in ques-
tion: who the par ticipants tn the c ommunic a tio n gr oup are, and in whac
re lations hip they s tand to e ach othe r.
T his is what> following Spe nce r and Gr e gory (1 9 64 ), we calle d the ‘te nor
of dis cours e ’. Ex ample s o f role re lations hips , that would be re fle cte d in the
language us e d are te ache iVpupil pare nt/child, child/child in peer group,
doctor /patie nt, cus tome r /s ale s man cas ual acquaintance s on a tr ain, and so
on. It is the role re lations hips , including the indire ct r e lations hip be twe e n a
write r and his audie nce , that de te r mine such things as the level o f te chni­
cality and degree o f for mality. Conte x ts o f s ituation, or settings, s uch as a
public lecture, playground a t playtime , church service, cocktail party and so
on can be re garde d as ins titutionalize d role re lations hips and hence as
s tabilize d patte rns of ihe te nor o f dis cours e .
3 M ode , T he language we us e diffe rs according to the channe l or
wave Je ngth we have s elected. Some time s we find ours e lve s , e s pe cially those
of us who te ach, m a didactic mode , at othe r time s the mode may be fanc iful
or comme rciaJ, o r impe r ative : we may choos e to be have as te acher, or poe t,
or adve rtis e r, or co mma nding officer: Es s e ntially, this is a que s tion of what
function, language is be ing made to serve in the conte xt of s itua t io n this is
whai unde rlie s the s e le ction o f the particular rhe torical channe l.
T his is what we call the ‘mode o f dis cours e '; a nd fundame nta l to it is the
dis tinction be twe e n s pe aking a nd wr iting. T his dis tinction partly cuts across
the rhe torical mode s ’ but it als o s ignificantly de te r mine s the m: although
ce rtain mode s can be re alize d thr ough e ithe r me dium, they te nd to take
quite diffe r e nt for ms according to whe the r s poke n or writte n - writte n
adve rtis ing, for e x ample , doe s not say the s ame things as sales talk. T his is
 Language and social man (Part 2) 223

because the two me dia re pre s e nt, e s s e ntially, diffe re nt func tions of la n­
guage , a nd the re fore e mbody s e le ctions o f diffe r e nt kinds . The que s tion
unde r lying the conce pt of the mode o f dis cours e is what func tion is Language
be ing used for, what is its specific role in the goings- on to which it is
contr ibuting? T o pe rs uade ? to s oothe ? to sell? to contr ol? to e x pla in? or jus t
to oil the works, as in what Malinows ki calle d ‘phatic c o m m un io n ’ e xe m­
plifie d above by the talk about ihe we athe r, which me re ly he lps the s ituation
along? He r e the dis tinction be twe e n the language o f play ing a game s uch as
bridge or football, a nd the language o f discus s ing a game be come s c le a r .【 n
the for me r s ituation the language is func tioning as a par t o f the game , as a
pragmatic expression o f play be haviour ; whe re as in the latte r, it is part o f a
very diffe r e nt kind o f activity, and ma_y be infor mative , didactic ar gume n­
tative , or any one o f a numbe r o f rhe tor ical mode s o f discourse.

It will be seen from the fore going tha 11he cate gorie s o f *ficl d o f disc ourse \
'te nor o f discourse\ a nd 4mode o f dis cours e ' are not the ms e lve s kinds or
varieties o f language . They are the backdr op, Che fe ature s o f the conte xt o f
s ituation which de te r mine the kind of language used. In othe r words, they
de te r mine what is ofte n re fe rre d to as the register: that is, the types o f
me aning that are selected, and the ir e xpre s s ion in gr ammar a nd vocabulary.
And they deternnin^ the register colle ctive ly, not pie ce me al. T he re is not a
gre at deal ⾸首 hat one can pre dict abo ut the language that will be us e d if one
knows only the fie ld o f dis cours e or o nly the te nor or the mode . But if we
know all thr e e we ca n pre dict quite a lo t; and, o f cours e, the more de taile d
the infor mation we have , the more linguis tic fe ature s o f the text we s hall be
able to pre dict.
It is poss ible, neverthe les s, to make some br oad ge ne r alization about e ach
of these three variable s s e parate ly, in te rms of its pr oba ble Linguistic c o n ­
sequences.
T he fie ld of discourse, since it largely de te r mine s the ‘conte nt’ o f what is
be ing s aid is Jikely to have the ma jo r influe nce on the s e le ction o f vo ­
cabulary, and also o n the s e le ction o f thos e grammatical patte rns which
express o ur e xpe rie nce o f the w o d d that is ar ound us and ins ide us th« types
of process, the classes o f obje ct, qualitie s a nd quantitie s , abs tract re lations
and so on.
T he te nor o f discourse, since it refers to the par ticipants in the speech
s ituation, and how they re late to e ach othe r both pe r mane ntly and te m ­
porarily, influe nce s the s pe ake r’s s e le ction of mo o d (his choice o f speech
role: making s tate me nts , as king que s tions and so on) and o f modality (his
assessment of the validity o f what he is s aying); it als o he lps to de te r mine the
key in which he pitche s his assertions (for ce ful, h e s ita nt gnomic, qualifie d
and so o n) and Ihe attitude s a nd fe e lings he expresses.
T he mode o f dis cours e »which cove rs both the channe l o f c ommunic at ion,
writte n or s poke n, and the par ticular rhe torical mode s e le cte d by the
speaker or writer, te nds to de te r mine the way the language hangs toge the r -
the 'texture\ to use a lite rary te rm: including bo th the inte r na l organization
224 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

of each sentence as a the matic cons truct and the cohesive re lations linking
one sentence with anothe r.
T he diffe re nce be twe e n s pe e ch and wr iting has an impor ta nt effect on the
whole patte rn o f le x icogrammatical or ganization, be cause it te nds to in flu­
ence the lexical de ns ity o f the d is b u r s e . In ge ne r al, wr itte n language is more
highly 'le xicalize d' than s poke n la ngua ge ; it has a more comple x vocabulary.
This does not necessarily me an that wr itte n language uses words tha t are
more unus ual, tho ug h this may b-e true too; but it me ans that it has a greater
lexica] de ns ity , packing more conte nt words into e ach phrase or clause or
sente nee. T o express this in anothe r way, wr itte n language contains more
lexical infor mation pe r unit of gr ammar . By the same toke n, writte n la n­
guage als o te nds to be s imple r than s poke n language in its grammatical
organization; s pe e ch, e s pe cially infor ma l s peech s uch as cas ual c on­
ve rs ation, displays comple xitie s o f se nte nce s tructure that would t>e into l­
erable (be caus e they w o uld be uninte lligible ) in wr iting. Natur ally, there is
cons ide rable varie ty w it hin b o th (he wr itte n and the s poke n mode s : the re
are forms o f wr iting that are more like s pe e ch, a nd forms o f s poke n language
thai are very close lo the wr itte n ( ‘he talks like a boo k,). B u t this kind of
var iation als o largely de pe nds on the rhe torical channe l o r ge nre , so it is s till a
function o f the mode o f dis cours e , Je a n Ure re marks , for e xample , that the
lexical de ns ity is de te r mine d by the exte nt to which the language is what she
calls language - in- actionT(1971)*
T he re is a elose inte r action be twe e n te nor and mode * and Gr e gor y prefers
to ide niify a separate s ubhe ading which he c a lls ‘func tiona l te nor to account
for the var iation in the rhe torical ge nre , include d here unde r mode (see
Gr e gory 1967 and table 6 be low; Be ns on and Gr e ave s 1973). T he c o m ­
bination o f the me dium* the rhe torical channe l and the s ocial re lations hip of
s pe ake r a nd hearers or write r and readers (and s uch a r e lations hip is
pre s ume d to e xis t e ve n if a write r is wr iting for an unknow n public - this is
ofte n a big factor in his success), te nd to influe nee the le ve l o f formality and
te chnicality at which the s pe ake r or write r is ope r ating, and he nee lead him
lo pre fe r ce r tain words ove r othe rs a nd to pitch his dis cours e at a ce rtain
point on the ‘style scaie'. T his conce pt of a s ingle scale of formality o f 'style'
varying across a range o f qualitie s s uch as intimate , cas ual, cons ultative ,
for mal a nd froze n (Joos 1962), can be applie d in s ome ins tance s ; but it is
impor tant to re cognize that it is a comple x notion e ncompas s ing a varie ty o f
rathe r diffe r e nt linguis tic fe ature s . Fur the r mor e the te rm 'for mality' (or
‘level o f for mality’ is the s ource o f s ome confus ion in discus s ions of la n­
guage , because it is u&ed in two diffe r e nt senses. O n the one hand it refers io
the use o f for ms o f the language - word s, or gr a mmatica l s tr uctur e s - tha t are
conve ntionally as sociate d with ce r tain mode s : w ith impe r s onal letters or
me mor a nda various type s o f inte rvie w and the like . O n the othe r hand it is
used to re fe r to the de gre e o f respect that is s hown linguis tically to che person
who is be ing addre s s e d: language s diffe r rathe r wide ly as regards how (a nd
also as re gards how much) they incor por ate the expression o f respect, but
there are ways of addre s s ing pare nts and e lde r s social and occupational
 Language and s ocial ma n (Part 2) 225

s upe riors and so on, that are re cognize d as the marks o f the social rela*
tion s hip involve d. Alt h o ug h (h ere is s ome ove r la p be twe e n these two senses
o f 'formality*, the y are in principle rathe r dis iinct and have diffe re nt m a n i­
fe s tations in gr ammar a nd vocabulary.
T a b le 6 Suggested categories of (1) dialectal and (2) diatypic variety diftorentiatk>n.
(From Gregory 1967.)

Dia le c ta l

SituationaJ cont$xtuaf examples of EngHsti varietfes

categories categories (d9scriptive contextuai categories)

irkdivlduality idiolect Mr X’s English, M iss

Y s English
tem poral tem pofal Okj English, mode m
provenance dialect Eng蝴 diBtectai v a ric e s
the linguistic
geographical geographical British English, reflection of
u s e r s < provertance dialect A merican EngNsh >reasonably permanent
charactefistics of
social social U pper-dass English, the oser in languaQe
provenance dialect M iddle-dass English situations

range of ifi- standard^non- Standard English, non­

lelligibility standard standard English

2 Dia ty p ic

situationaJ contextual examptes of Engtish varieties

catBgoriBSi categories (descriptive corttextuaf categories}

"purpos ive fiekdof T & c^ical English, non-

rote discourse technical Engfish
medium mode of Spoken Er>gfisht wrHtan diatyptc variotms:
re la tions hip discourse English the tinguistic
rejection of
user's^ addressee lenor of ^recurrent character­
relationship; discourse: istics of
user's use of Iar>9iia9e
(a) personal pe rs ona l Formal EngNsh, informal in situations
tenor English
(b) functional functiooal Okiactic Enghsfi. non-
tenor didactic English ,

So there is some te nde ncy for the fie ld o f dis cours e to de te r mine the
conte nt o f what is said or written* for the te nor t o de te r mine the tone o f it,
and for the mode to de te r mine the te xture. But this is o nly an appr ox i­
mation. In the first place , we ca nnot re ally s e parate what is s aid fTom how it
is said, a nd this is jus t as true o f e ve ryday language as it is o f myth a nd poetry.
226 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

Jn the second place , the fie ld, te nor a nd mode o f dis cours e make the ir impact
as a whole , not in is olation from each othe r ; the linguis tic re fle ction o f any
one o f the m de pe nds on its co mbina tion with th e othe r two. T he re is not a
gre at de al that one can say a b o u t the Language o f football, take n as a rubric
jus t by its e lf (fie ld o f dis cours e ), or the language of public le cture s (mode ),
or the language o f te ache r and pupil (te no r ). Thes e are ce rtainly me aningful
conce pts , as is prove d by the fact that if we he ar a re cording o r read a passage
o ut o f conte xt we can us ually ide ntify it in precisely s uch te rms as the s e ; but
we ofte n do so by me ans o f linguis tic clue s which are the ms e lve s rathe r
tr ivia l like the le cture r’s voice qua lity o r the urge nt *sir!* o f the s choolboy. In
orde r to be able to pre dict the inte re s ting and impor tant fe ature s o f the
language that is used, we ne e d t o characte rize the s ituation in te rms o f all
thre e variable s in inte r action w ith e ach othe r.
Suppos e we have the s e tting de s cr ibe d in s ome s uch te rms as these:
Field: Instruction; the instruction o i a novice
- in a board game (e.g* Monopoly) with equipment present
- for the purpose of enabling him to participate
Tenor: Eq ua l a nd intima te : thre e y o ung a d u lt male s ; a c qua inte d
- but with hierarchy in the situation (2 experts, 1 novice)
- leading to superior- inferior role re latiomhip
Mode: Spoken: unrehearsed
Didactic and explanatory, with undertone of non .seriousness
- wilh feedback: q uestion - and- answer, correction of error
He re we can pre dict quite a lo t about Ihe language that will be used, in
respect o f the me anings a nd the s ignificant gr a mmatica l and Lexical features
thr ough which the y are expressed. If the e ntr ie s unde r fie ld, te nor and mode
are fille d o ut carefuHy and thoughtfuily , it is s ur pr hing how many fe ature s
of the language turn o ut to be re latable to the conte xt o f s ituation. T his is
not to claim tha t we know what the par ticipants are going to say; it merely
shows that we can make s ensible a nd infor me d guesses about ce rtain aspects
o fw h a t the y might say with a re as onable pr obability o f be ing right. T he re is
always, in language , the fre e dom to act untypically —but that in its e lf serves
to confir m the re ality o f the conce pt o f what is typical.
T he re is an e x pe r ime nt we ll know n to s tude nts o f linguis tics in which the
s ubje ct lis te ns to a re cording that is ‘nois y’ in the te chnical sense (badly
dis torte d o r ja m m e d ), so m uc h so that he ca nnot unde r s tand anything of
what is be ing s aid. He is the n give n a s imple d u e as to the re gis ter; and next
time he listens he unde r s tands practically the whole text. We always listen
and re ad with e xpe ctations , and the notion o f re gis te r is re ally a the ory about
these e xpe ctations , pr oviding a way o f ma king the m e xplicit.
T o gain some impre s s ion o f la n g u a g e in the life o f the ind ivid ua l1 it is
hardly necessary, or pos s ible , to ke e p de taile d re cords o f who says what, to
w h o m whe n, a n d why. Bu t it is no t too difficult to take note o f infor mation
about register, with e ntrie s for fie ld te nor a nd mode in the language diary.
T his can give valua ble ins ights into what language me a ns to the individua l. It
 Language and s ocial ma n (P a r i 2) 227

will aJso e ffe ctive ly de molis h any s us picion that there are social groups
whose language is impove ris he d or de ficie nt, since it goes s traight to Ian*
guage as be ha viour pote ntia l, to tbe s e mantic system that lies be hind the
wordings and the *s oundings * which are so ofte n r idic ule d or dis mis s e d from
s erious atte ntion.
Points to cons ide r
a Wha t doe s the language profile of an ind ividua l’s daily life lo ok like ?
Wha t role s has he adopte d, that have be e n expressed thr ough language ?
Wha t forms o f inte raction have these involve d (e.g. the role o f ^eldest
daughte r ’ implie s inte raction wiih pare nt(s ) o n the one hand and with
y oung e r b r o the r (s ) o t s is te r (s ) o n the o the r ; that o f *te ache r' suggests
inte raction with pupils a nd als o, pe rhaps , with s chool pr incipal)?
In what language e ve nts (type s o f linguis tic s ituation) has he par ticipate d?
Has he made use o f diffe re nt variants (diale ct s witching), and if so, with
what kind o f linguis tic var ia tion a nd unde r what circums tance s ?
b Wh a t is the patte r n o f re gis te r var iation?
Ca n we specify the re le vant backgr ound fe ature s for par ticular instances
o f language use?
fie ld o f discourse : the nature o f the activity, a nd s ubje ct- matte r
te nor o f dis cours e : the role re lations hips among the participants
m ode o f dis cours e : the channe l, a nd the part playe d by language in the
total e ve nt.
Whe r e are the prope r tie s o f the fie ld, te nor a nd mode re ve ale d in the
language , s poke n o r wr itte n? How far co uld the e ave s droppe r fill in the
s ituational backgr ound; and conve rs e ly, what fe ature s o f the language
could have be e n pre dicte d fr om the s ituational infor mation?
c Ho w muc h more difficult w ould it have be e n for the individual to survive
w ithout language ?

5 L anguage and tbe context of situation

Like aU the he adings in o ur list, this is closely re late d to the othe rs ; in
particular , it ove rlaps with the pre vious one , tha t o f language in the life o fthe
individua l. But there is a diffe re nce o f pe rs pe ctive : he re we are focus ing
atte ntion on the ge ne r alize d conte xts of language use and the func tion of
language within these contexts, r athe r than on the linguis tic profile o f an
individual s pe ake r. T he que s tion that is rais ed is not so muc h w ha i language
me ans to an individua l in his da ily life as what the typical s ocial conte xts are
in which he participate s as an ar ticulate be ing.
As in the last section, there is no difficulty in unde r s ta nding the ge ne ral
pr inciple : it is obvious that we use language in conte xts of s ituat ion and that
these can be de s cribe d in various ways. The proble m here has always be e n
how be s t to describe the various kinds o f s e tting, a nd e s pe cially how to br ing
out whai is s ignificant and dis tinguis h it fr om all the irre le vant particularitie s
that are associated with specific instances.
228 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

T his alr e ady arises an the tr e atme nt of register, as a pr oble m of what Ellis
calls ‘de licacy o f focus . Suppos e , to take a tr ivial e xample , tha t the fie ld o f
discourse is s hopping: do we characte rize this as s imply 'tr ans action^ o r as
*buying’ (as dis tinct from, say, bor r owing), or as ‘buying in a s hop1 (as
dis tinct fr om in the mar ke t), or as *buying in a che mis t's s hop1 (as dis tinct
from a groce r’s) or as "buying a to othbr us h (as dis tinct fr om a cake o f s oap)?
An d since the cr ite r ion is bound to be our assessment, in s ome for m or othe r,
of whe the r it matte rs or not, we ma y as we ll as k whe the r we are like ly to take
any intere st in a s ituation o f this kind in the first place.
One way of de c iding whe the r a par ticular type o f s ituation is o f inte re s t or
not is to cons ide r, in te rms o f the s econd o f the he adings above , whe the r i( is
of any s ignificance for the s ocialization of a child. For e xample , it is a good
working, hypothe s is to assume that any type of s ituation in which a par e nt is
contr olling the c h ild ’s be ha viour is pote ntially im po r ta nt for linguis tic and
social de ve lopme nt; a nd this suggests not only tha t these s ituations are of
interest to us, but als o that a ce rtain amount o f infor ma tio n ne e ds to be given
about the m, s pe cifically infor ma tio n about what aspect o f the child's
be haviour it is that is be ing re gulate d: whe the r, for e x a mple atte ntion is
be ing foe used o n his pe rs onal re lations hips ( 4don"t talk to Gr a nny like th a t! }
or on his be haviour towar ds obje cts ( ‘do n’t te ar it ’),
Ge ne raJly s pe aking, the conce pt of social ma n provide s the grounds for
assessing the impor tance o f a give n class o f context* T he fact that a particular
type of language us e is re le vant to the s ocialization o f the child is one
guarante e o f s ignificance ; b ut it i s not the only one —there are othe r ways in
which it ma y be o f importance in the cultur e . We might for e x ample think of
a linguis tic s etting s uch as ‘te ache r- pare nt cons ultation1, s ubdivide d into
individual contact, pare nts ’ as s ociation me e ting, e xchange o f letters and so
on; this may be as s ume d to be o f s ome s ignificance in an e duca tional conte xt,
and the re fore the for ms o f linguis tic inte raction be twe e n te ache r a nd pare nt
might well be worth lo o king into. Eve n more inte re s ting are the forms o f
linguis tic inte raction be twe e n te ache r and pupil in the clas s room, a nd in
othe r s chool settings. T he re have now be e n a numbe r o f us e ful s tudie s o f
clas s room language , a n d these all de pe nd on s ome notion of the re le vant
conte xts o f s ituation.
An o t h e r quite diffe r e nt re as on for thin king a bo ut "Language a nd s ituation
is the fact that the pupil, in the cours e o f his e ducation, is e xpe cte d to be come
sensitive to the use of language in diffe re nt s itua tio n types, and to be able to
vary his o w n liaguis tic be haviour in re spons e to the m. T he move , in schools,
away fr om a total pre occupation with for mal compos ition towards an
awareness of the many diffe r e nt type s o f language use involve d a fairly
drastic r e de finition o f the e duc ationally re le vant contexts o f s ituation —a
re de finition which was not w ithout its dange r s a nd difficultie s , as s ubs e que nt
de bate re ve ale d but which was very necessary ne ve rthe le s s . Bo th B re ak ­
through to lite racy and Language in use de ma nd an e nlighte ne d a nd ima gina ­
tive vie w o f language and s itua tion; be caus e o f this , the y are an e xce lle nt
source of ins ight into que s tions o f re le vance . As we have stressed all along,
 Language and social ma n (Part 2) 229

there is n o diffe re nce be twe e n kno w ing language a n d knowing how to use it;
success in the mo the r tongue is success in de ve loping a linguis tic pote ntial
for ail the types o f conte x t that are e nge nde re d by the cultur e . Fr om this
point of view, if we think that a pupil w hen he leaves s chool s hould be able to
use language ade quate ly in this o r that par ticular range o f conte xts , the n
thos e conte xts are impo r ta nt e ve n if the y d o no i seem to provide any gre at
scope for linguis tic virtuos ity o r (he exercise o f the cre ative imagination.
And there is some value to be gaine d fr om an occas ional glance at those
types of language use which are no t nor ma lly re garde d as the re s pons ibility
o f the school. A n e xample is the language o f te chnical ins tructions : if one
looks care fully (a nd s ympathe tically) at ttie le afle ts is s ue d by the m a n u­
facture rs o f appliance s not to the ge ne ral public but to those re s pons ible for
the ins tallation a nd mainte nance o f these appliance s , one can get a very cle ar
picture o f how language is re late d to the conte xt o f s ituation in whic h it is
func tioning - o r rathe r tha t in which it is inte nde d to func tion: one s hould
always r e me mbe r that a le afle t o f this kind is as out of conte xt in the
clas s room as would be the gas boile r itself, or whate ve r othe r obje ct it is
de s igne d to accompany.
These are very clearly qa e s lions o f re gis ter, and we almos t ine vitably use
conce pts r e lating to fie id, te nor or mode o f discourse whe n we talk about
language in r e lation to the s ituation. F or mula tions like *the language o f the
classroom\ lthe language o f te chnical ins tr uctions ', are all characte rizations
o f this kind, s ome time s re lating to jus t one o f the thre e dime ns ions , ofte n
c ombining features o f more than one* It is, in fact, very re ve aling to analyse
some of the for mulations that are co mmonly us e d, and take n for gr ante d as
me a ningful de s criptions o f type s o f language use, in or de r to see what
infor mation ihe y provide which mig ht e nable us to make pre dictions about
the te xt; a nd we can do this by r e lating the m to fie ld, te nor and mode .
Anthr opologis ts ofte n use te rms like 'pr agmatic speech*, 'r itual language " or
MaJinows ki*s ‘phatic c o m m u n io n '; the que s tion is what we can gathe r from
these about the fie ld o f activity, the par ticipant role s a n d role re lations hips
involve d, and the par t playe d by language in the process.
Some o f the te rms that typically figure in discus s ions o f language in the
conte xt o f Englis h te aching are - worth cons ide ring firom this point o f view,
te rms s uch as ‘cre ative wr iting "imaginative language\ ‘ja r g o n 'or dinary
language ’. These are rare ly as obje ctive a nd precise as they are made to
seem. Jar gon, for ins tance ofte n me ans no more tha n te chnical te rms which
the s pe ake r pe r s onally dis like s , pe r haps because he is not sure how to use
the m. If we try to inte rpre t th&se labe ls in te rms o f fie ld, te nor and mode , wc
find that it is not easy to see what the y re ally imply about the k in d o f
language used. It is not tha t the y are not me a ningful; b ut there is no
consensus as to w hat the y me a n so we have very little clue as to w ha l would
be ge ne r ally re garde d as a s pe cime n o f s uch language ‘ Wh a t is cre ative in
one type o f s ituation (o r in one p *s o p in io n ) w o uld not be so in anothe r .
T he te rm •s ituation1 i$ s ome ti is le ading, since it conjure s up the ide a
of ‘props ’ the specific a nd concre te s urr oundings o f a par ticular speech
230 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

e ve nt such as might appe ar in a photogr a ph of the scene. But this image is

muc h too par ticular ; what is s ignificant is the s ituation ty pe the c o n­
figuration o f e nvir onme nta l factors that typically fas hions o u r ways o f s pe ak­
ing and writing.

Points to cons ide r

a Wh a t are e xample s of socially s ignificant s itua tio n types, cons ide re d from
an e ducational point o f vie w?
How accurate ly a nd s pe cifically do we de fine the m? Wh a t is the 'de licacy
o f focus* e.g. schoo 1- classroom- English class - "creative wr iting session?
In what ways are s uch s ituation type s s ignificant for the pupils ' success in
school (as dis tinct fr om thos e tha t are critical for the c h ile s 's ocialization*
m ge ne ral, as in section 2 above )? Wh a t do we e xpe ct to le ar n fr o m an
imaginative inquir y into the use o f language in these conte xts ?
b Wh a t are the ge ne r alize d functions o f language within these s ituation
type s ?
Wha t do we me an whe n we talk of ‘cre ative ‘tr a ns a c lio na r ‘pr actical1,
‘e xpres s ive’ (e tc.) language ? How far is an inte r pr e tation o f language in
these te rms de pe nde nt on o u r aware ne s s o f the s ituation?
Ca n we re late the use o f language to the inte r action o f s ocial role s within
these s ituation type s ? (T he n o t io n tha t the type o f language used -
expressive, creative* etc. - is solely gove r ne d by the free choice o r w him o f
the individual is ve ry much ove r s implifie d, a nd le ads to some highly
artificial and unre alis tic clas s room exercises.)
Ar e the re ‘pur e ’ types of language use, or do re al s ituations always
ge ne rate some kind o f mix e d type ? (T his is a vas t topic in its o w n right.
Pr obably mos t us e o f language is ne ithe r rigidly pure nor hopelessly
mixe d, but involve s a do m ina nt register a nd one o r two s ubs idiary motifs .
Language in use provide s oppor tunitie s fa r e x plor ing this no tio n furthe r .)

6 L anguage and inslMutions

Ag a in this is re late d to the pre vious he adings ; it suggests a fur the r angle on
the ge ne r al the me o f language and s ocial inte raction. In s e ction 4 the focus
of atte ntion was on the individual; it was the individual who s upplie d the
common thre ad linking one language e ve nt with anothe r . In s e ction 5 we
took the s ituation as the bas ic cons truct a nd us e d tha t as the me ans o f
re lating language e vents . He r e we focus atte ntion o n social ins titutions , s uch
as a family, a s chool o r a factory; these provide continuity o f yet anothe r
kind, s uch as is implie d by expre s s ions like la ng ua g e in the home* or
la ng ua g e in s chool .
We can think o f any s ocial ins titution fr om the linguis tic po int o f view, as
a c ommuntc a non ne twork. Its ve ry existence implie s that c ommunic a tio n
takes place within it; there will be s haring o f e xpe rie nce , e xpre s s ion o f social
s olidarity de cis ion- making and pla nning, a nd if it is a hie rarchical ins titu­
tion, for ms of ve rbal contr ol, tr ans mis s ion o f orde rs and the like . T he
 Language and s ocial ma n (Par t 2) 231

structure o f the ins titution will be e ns hrine d in the language , in the diffe re nt
types o f inte raction that take place a nd the linguis tic registers associated
with the m.
An obvious e xample is a s c hool which is e x amine d fr om this point of view
by Pe te r Doughty in chapte r 6 of E x plo ring L anguage s :
In ihe sense that a school functions as a social group within a discernible social
coniexi, it is ^ spccch community: there witl be patterns o f interaction peculiar
to the school, and consequently, Ihere will a]so be pal terns of language in use
peculiar to it and those who work together in the school develop common
res pons es to the m (pp, LOO—101).

T he s chool is a c ommunic a tio n ne twor k, compos e d of many s malle r

ne tworks that crisscross e ach othe r a nd may be re lative ly fixe d and cons tant
or fluid a nd s hifting. Cons ide r for e xample the que s tion o f how de cis ions are
trans mitte d. On e c ommunic a tio n ne twor k is for me d by the chain of c o m ­
mand, which might r un fr om pr incipal to he ad o f de pa r tme nt to me mbe r of
staff to pupil. T he de taile d patte rn is modifie d and varie d from one instance
to anothe r ; but the me chanis ms are us ually linguis tic, a nd can be de s cribe d
(a ga in on the the or e tical basis o f fie ld, te nor a nd mo d e ) in te rms of a few
re cognize d s ituation types: for mal inte rvie w, t€te- A- t€te, assembly,
notice boar d and so on. It is inte re s ting to follow what happe ns in the case of
a par ticular policy de cis ion, from its original dis cus s ion (if any) and adoption
to its e ve ntual putting into e ffe ct, seeing how language is used at e ach stage
and how it signals the social re lations hips involved* As Doughty puts it, there
are ‘ways o f ope r a ting thr ough which one individual indicate s to anothe r his
unde r s tanding o f the ir mutual status and r e la tions hip•’
T he re are als o the Linguistic aspects o f the processes whe r e by a de cis ion is
made , as dis tinct fr om thos e by which Lt is tr ans mitte d. Suppos e it is initiate d
from a level some way be low the level o f a uthor ity re quire d for its adoption;
for e x ample a s ugge s tion fr om the das s for a vis it to the docks . How is this
for mulate d for the purpos e o f be ing re fe rre d upwar d for de cis ion, from the
class to the te acher, or fr om the te ache r to the principal?
T he making a nd im ple m e nt ia g o f de cis ions is only one o f the aspects o f the
life o f an ins titution that ca n be cons ide re d fr om this point of vie w taking the
ins titution as a co mmunic a tion ne twor k.
T he characteristics o f one type o f ins titution, a nd the fe ature s that set it off
from othe rs , ar e like ly to be re ve ale d in une xpe cte d ways in the language .
For e x ample ce r tain ins titutions o f which the s chool is one , are dis ­
tinguis he d by the existence of a clie nte le a gr oup for whom the ins titution is
originally de s igne d but w ho are dis tinct fr om the me mbe r s o f it the pr o ­
fessionals who, typically, e ar n the ir living fr om the ins titution. T he s chool
has pupils ; s imilarly, a hote l has guests, a hos pital has patie nts , an airline has
passengers. (The se contr as t with ins titutions s uch as a family a club o r a
union branch, which have only me mbe rs ; and with those which have a
'ge ne ral public ’ with w hom the y communica te only indire ctly a nd thr ough
special channe ls , s uch as an indus tr ial e nte rpris e , or a gove r nme nt depart-
232 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

me nt.) He r e the status o f the clie nte le is largely re ve ale d by the nature o f the
communic ation that takes place be twe e n il and the me mbe rs . T he re is a
re cognize d das s of joke s about ins titutions which lose sight o f the interests
o f the clie nte le who cons titute the s ole reason for theix exis tence ce ntring
r ound the basic the me of ‘ihis would be a s ple ndid place to work in if it was n't
for the . . , (pupiJs , gue sts, e t c ,)/ T h e re ality be hind this form o f humour , the
r athe r natur al te nde ncy on the part o f the profe s s ionals to re gard ihe
cus tome rs as an unneces s ary intrus ion in the s mooth r unning o f the ins titu­
tion, is again mos t clearly re ve ale d thr ough the language .
T he s chool itseJf, the r e fore , is only one o f many ins titutions that are o f
intere st from this point o f view, as a communic ation ne tw ork a nexus of
inte rpe rs onal conte xts for the use o f language . But in one respect it differs
from the othe rs me ntione d above . Mos t othe r ins titutions o f this ge ne ral
type - those with a clie nte le - serve the ir clie nte le in nonlinguis tic ways. The
hos pital tre ats the ir ailme nts , the air line move s the m from place to place , the
hote 】 feeds and e nte rtains them* In a s chool, the r e lation be twe e n s taff and
pupils is essentially one o f talk. T he whole func tion of the school is to be a
co mmunic a tion ne twor k jo ining profe s s ional and clie nt. (Pe rhaps the ne ar ­
est type of ins tilutiorh to it tn this respect is a chur ch.) He nce an unde r ­
s tanding of the ins titutional use o f language is e ve n more funda me nta l in the
s chool than els e whe re .
Re ce ntly we have be gun to see s ome pe ne tr ating accounts o f the use o f
language in the clas s room (e.g* Sinclair e /a/. 1972; Fiv e to N ine 1972), and
these will no doubt she d a rathe r ne w light on Ihe nature o f the s chool as an
ins titution and the re fore o n the e duca tional process. T his refers not only to
the te ache r’s own use o f language , but als o to the s or t o f language he gets as
weJI as rhe sort o f language he expects, from the pupils . T he latte r are no
longe r e njoine d to silence, as the y were once ; the communication channe ls
are now two- way. But at the s ame time there are re s traints , a nd only ce rtain
type s of linguis tic be ha vio ur on the par t o f the pupils are normally re garde d
as acce ptable —de pe nding, o f cours e, o n the conte xt: forms o f s peech which
are not acce ptable in the clas s room or cor r idor w ould pass unnotice d on the
s ports fie ld. T his is anothe r instance o f variation in register.
Finally the re is als o the e xte r nal aspect o f the communic ation patte rns ;
communic ation be twe e n the school and the outs ide world. We have alre ady
re fe rre d to te acher- parent inte r action; but the re are many othe r aspects to
this ’ which take n toge the r reflect the place o f the s chool in the c ommunity as
a whole . T his als o is be s t seen thr ough atte ntion to the language , which is
like ly to sKow up many of the as s umptions that are made , by the s chool on
the one ha nd a nd the c ommunity on the othe r , about the role o f the s chool in
the life of social man.

Points to cons ide r

a Wh a t d o we me an by an ins titution fr om a linguis tic point of vie w? In
othe r words can we de fine it by refe rence to the conce pt o f a c o nv
munic a tio n ne twor k?
 Language and s ocial man (Part 2) 233

Wh o talks to whom, a n d who writes to whom, as an es s e ntial par t o f the

fabric a f the ins tiiution?
Wh o talks or wr ite s to whom a s a me ans o f contact be twe e n the ins titution
a nd the outs ide world?
b Wha t is the s pe cial nature o f the s chool as a co mmunic a tion ne twor k?
How doe s it diffe r, in this re gard fr om othe r ins titutions o f a compar able
nature ?
How are de cis ions made , a nd how are the y tr ans mitte d? Wh a t are the
ling uis tic fe ature s o f the de cis ion processes?
Wh a t type s o f communic ation are necessary to, and characte ris tic of, the
life of the s chool? (T he s e again can be seen in te rms of fie ld, te nor and
mode : what s ignificant kinds o f activity are carrie d o n through language ,
what is the specific channe l of co mmunic a tion in e ach case, and whai are
the role re lations hips involve d?)
c Whe re are the bre ak dow ns in c ommunic a tio n, and why?

7 L anguage attitudes
The s ubje ct of attitude s to Language has be e n discussed fre que ntly ove r the
past te n years. One o f the e arly tre atme nts o f it in an ^duc a tiona 1conte xt was
inHa llid a y e / al. (1 9 64 ), T he linguis tic sciences an d language te aching (ch. 4),
whe re it was stressed that the re as on for ins is ting on public dis cus s ion o f
attitude s to Language was that these can be, a nd have be e n, e xtre me ly
har mful in the ir effects on e duca tional practice (cf. T rudgiH 1975).
We re fe rre d in chapte r 1 to the "stereotype hypothe s is 1, a nd to the fact that
teachers ofte n base the ir initial judg e me nt o f a child, a nd the ir e xpe ctations
of his pe r for mance very largely upon his acce nt. T his is alre ady very
damaging, since a child - like an adult - te nds to be have as he is e xpe cte d to
do: if he is s te re otype d as a failur e , he will fail. But it is not only in the ir initial
e xpe ctations tha t teachers have dis cr iminate d in this way. T he y have ofte n
totally re je cte d the c hild’s mothe r tongue , a n d tr ie d to s ta mp it o ut with the
full force o f the ir diappr oval a nd scorn. It is unlike ly tha t a child will come
out o f this sort of orde al uns cathe d. Wh e n the author s o f T he ling uis tic
sciences and language te aching wrote tha t ‘A s pe ake r w ho is made as hame d
of his own language habits suffers a bas ic injur y as a huma n be ing: to make
anyone , es pe ciaiiy a child, fe e l s o as hame d is as inde fe ns ible as to make him
feel as hame d of the colour o f his s kin’ 105) they were actually take n to task
in the columns o f a w o me n’s magazine , on ihe grounds that whe re as a child
cannot change the colour o f his s kin he can le ar n to change his language .
T his s e e ms to imply that if Catholics are dis cr iminate d agains t the best way
to he lp the m is by forcible conve rs ion to Prote s tantis m,
T o re ject this is not to argue lh a t a te ache r ought to Learn to ta lk to the
childre n in the ir ne ighbour hood diale ct, a ge s ture which by its e lf serves little
purpos e . B u t he s hould be pre pare d to re cognize both his own and othe r
pe ople 's folk- linguis tic attitude s ; a nd, ide ally, to e xplore these attitude s ,
234 Sociolinguis tics and e ducation

taking the pupils into his confide nce . The pupils ’ ow n e xpe rie nce will tell
the m that language is one o f the many aspects o f hum a n be haviour that is
judge d by othe rs as *good* or *bad the y can be e ncour age d to try and find
out why this is, and can be guide d by the te ache r towards an unde r s tanding
which e nable s the m to see thr ough and be hind these judge me nts . (It is not
unknow n for the pupils to guide the te ache r, in the first ins tance .) T his puts
que s tions o f diale ct and acce nt, s tandard and nons ta nda r d into a pe rspe c­
tive. We all ne e d to le arn some for m o f the s tandard language - it does not
matte r much with w ha l acce nt, and there is little chance o f the te ache r’s
influe ncing this a n y w a y - b ut if the s tandard diffe r s fr om our mothe r tongue ,
we d o not thr ow the mothe r tongue away. T he re are functions o f language to
which the one is appr opr ia te but not the othe r . Le ar ning s tandard Englis h, in
fact, is more a matte r o f le a r ning ne w registers tha n o f le ar ning a new diale ct.
Social ma n is, ine vitably, his own e thnogr aphe r ; he has his own mode l of
hims e lf, his society, a nd his language . T his mode l contains a gre at de al of
us eful ins ight; but it is clutte re d up w ith attitude s which may originally have
be e n prote ctive to the individual hims e lf b u l which no longe r serve him any
purpos e and be come ha r mful if he is in a pos ition to influe nce othe rs . Such
attitude s are difficult t o re cognize be cause the y are dis guis e d a nd le gitimize d
as s tate me nts of fact. T his is why one o f the mos t far- reaching tre nds o f the
past de cade has be e n the tre nd, in e duca tion, towards a much gre ate r social
and linguis tic obje ctivity a nd unde r s tanding; the appr oach to language is
now on the whole cons tructive a nd pos itive , ins te ad o f be ing large ly ne gative
as it was be fore .
In e x plor ing language , we are very natur ally Jed to e xplore (he folk
linguis tic that goes with it. An impor ta nt par t o f this , as Pe te r Doughty
points out, is de rive d from e xpe rie nce at s chool; and the s chool is a good
place in which to e xplore it. T he class can colle ct cuttings about language
from letters to the press, columns in popula r magazine s and so on, to see
what sort o f ide as pe ople have ; the y can note the words that are used (o pass
judg e me nt on language {good, correct, w rong, iaz y , ugfy etc.)^, the e x pla­
nations that are offe r e d for these judge me nts , if any (why is s ome thing said
to be w rong or s loppy ?)^ a nd the pa r ticular aspects o f language that are
br ought u p for discussion (acce nt, gr ammar , vocabulary). It is easy to
as sume that the re mus t be a ge ne ral cons e ns us a bo ut aH s uch matters, but
this is largeJy iHusory: apart from the pre s criptive rules that we re codifie d in
the EngJis h te xtbooks of the pre vious ge ne r ation, which have a very s trong
powe r o f s urvival, the cons e ns us consists in little more than a ge ne ral
agre e me nt that there mus t be a r ight and a wr ong in language s ome whe re .
It is pe rhaps worth a dding a note about phone tics , e s pe cially at a point in
his tory whe n e ducate d Br itons ar e once again be coming linguis ts , in the
othe r sense o f the te r m (s pe ake rs of for e ign languages )^ as the y us e d to be
not so very long ago. In any class whe re s ome or all o f the pupils "speak with
an acce nt1—which me ans the vast major ity o l the s chools in the countr y - it
will be easy to show that for le a r ning Fre nch o r Ge r m a n or Ita lia n or Rus s ian
some of the s ounds in the ir own s pe e ch are much more he lpful that thos e o f
 Language and s ocial ma n (Par t 2) 235

R P ( - ‘r e ce ive d pr onunciat ion’ not 'royal pronunciation\ although it could

be r oughly de fine d as the Qu e e n ’s Englis h). In le ar ning fore ign language s ,
the child who speaks RP has no advantage s ; a n d it is very dis he arte ning -
though not unc ommon - to he ar childr e n s truggling har d to pronounce
fore ign s ounds badly, in good Englis h, whe n if the y had not be e n taught to
disvalue the ir own native s peech they could have us e d this as a mode l and
pr onounce d the fore ign s ounds well a nd w ith ease.
T he ability to make obs e rvations on the s peech of the pupils in accurate
phone tic te rms is> natur a lly, s ome thing tha t re quire s tr aining. But one part
o f this is a tr aining in lis te ning obje ctive ly to speech s ounds a nd in seeing
through the folk- linguis tic jar gon of ‘pur e ’ ‘iiars h *grating\ "rich*, and
othe r s uch te rminological obs tacle s to cle ar thinking ; and this one can
achieve on one 's own, give n a re as onable das h o f curios ity a nd open-
mindedness* A te ache r who is inte re s te d in this aspect o f language can the n
try oxit the Ste re otype hypothe s is ’ o n hims e lf, and see how far his own
e xpe ctations o f an individual p u p ilTs pe r for mance do in fact corre late with
how that pupil pr onounce s Englis h. In the long run, we may find that the
advantage lies with the child w ho has mas te r e d a varie ty o f diffe re nt speech
forms , although this would have more to d o with register than with dialect.
At the very le as t we can s how that que s tions o f acce nt a nd diale ct can be the
s ubje ct o f r ational a nd tole rant dis cus s ion, ins te ad o f be ing us e d as a me ans
of type cas ting h um a n be ings into re adymade cate gorie s and labe lling the m
with badge s o f infe r iority and s hame . We te nd to tr e at language all too
s ole mnly, yet without taking it s e rious ly; if we could le ar n to be rathe r more
s erious about it and at the same time a lo t less s ole mn, we s hould come
ne are r to e x ploiting its fult pote ntia l as the corne rs tone of the e ducationat
process.

Poinrs 1 0 cons ide r

a Wha t are the mos t fa miliar altitude s towards Linguistic nor ms and c or ­
rectness?
Wha t linguis tic opinions are he ld by (i) the childre n, (ii) the ir pare nts , (iii)
your colle ague s ’ (iv) you?
How are these attitude s manife s te d and expres s ed?
Ar e the value judge me nts conce r ne d ma inly with gr amma r ? with vo­
cabula r y? with diale ct and acce nt? Is a dis tinction made be twe e ngram-
m ar ( = ‘what s hould be ) a nd “sage ( = ‘what is ’)
b Wha t is the effect o f these attitude s on the r e lations hip be twe e n te ache r
and pupil?
Do they provide a clue to (i) the te a c he r s e xpe ctations , (ii) the teacher's
assessments o f the pupil's pe r for mance ?
Wha t is the effect o f these attitude s o n the child's own e xpe ctations o f the
school, and o n his feelings about his chances of success?
Wh a t is the effect on his actual pe r for mance ?
References

Abdulaziz, M. H, 1971: Tanzania’s national language policy and the rise of Swahili
political culture ' In Whiteley 1971.

Bar atz, Jo a n C. 1969: ‘A bi- dia kc ta l tas k for d e te r m ining langua ge proficie ncy in
e c onomic ally dis a dva nta ge d Ne gr o childr e n*. Child D evelopment 40.
— 1970: ‘Teaching reading in an urban Negro school system'. In Williams 1970a.
Baratz, Joan C. and Shuy Ro^er W. (eds.): Teaching Black chiidren to read.
Washington^ DC: Center for Applie d Linguistics.
Barthe s , Ro la n d 1970; ^l/ a nc ie tme rhe torique \ Communications 16.
Basso, Keith H. 1967; 'Semantic aspects of linguistic acculturation . American
A nihropobgis t 69.
Be llack, A . A ” Dlie b a r d , H. M ” Hy m a n , R+ T* a n d Smith, F. L. Jr 1966: The
language o f ihe classroom. Ne w Yo r k ; T cache rs Colle ge Press.
Benson, James D. and Greaves, WilLiam S+ 1973: The language people really use.
Agincourt Ontario: The Book Society of Canada,
Berger, Peter L. and K.eliner, Hansfried 1970: ‘Marriage and the construction of
r e ality . In Ha n s P e t e r Dre itze ] (e d .)t Recent sociology 2 patterns of com-
municQiive behavior. Ne w Yo r k : Ma c m illa n.
Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas 1966: The social construction o f reality: a
treatise in the sacioiogy o f know ledge. Ne w Yo r k : Do ub le d a y , Lo nd o n: Alle n
Lane (Penguin Press) 1967.
Be r ns te in, Bas il 1971: Cf-ass^, codes and control 1; theoretical studies iow ards a
sociology o f language. (Primary Socialization, Language and Education.) Lon­
don: RouHedge & Kegan Paut.
~ (e d.) 1973: Class, codes and control 2: applied studies towards a sociology o f
language. (Primary Socialization, Language and Education.) London: Rout­
ledge Sl Kegan Paul.
— 1974: *A br ie f account o f the the or y c f codes*. Ap p e n d ix to Be r ns te in 1971.
Lo ndo n: Pa ladin,
—1975: Ciassy codes and controi 3.- towards a theory o f educational (ransmtssiens.
(P r ima r y Soc ia liza tion, La ngua ge a n d E d u c a t io n ,) Lo n d o n : Ro utle dg e &.
K e g a n P a u l.
Bickerton, Derek 1971: ^Inherent variability and variable rules*. Foundations o f
L anguage 7.
BJom, J. P, and Gum p e r z, Jo h n J , 1972: 'So m e s ocial de te r mina nts o f ve r bal
be ha vio r '. In Gu m p e r z a n d Hy me s 1972.
Bour die u, Pie rre 1971: T h e Be r b e t hous e , o r the w or ld r e ve r s e d'. In Echange$ et
 Re fe r e nce s 237

communications: melanges offerts d Claude L ivi'Strauss a toccasion de son 60e

anniversaire. The Hague ; Mo u t o n . Als o in Do ug la s 1973.
Br ight, Wikliam (e d .) 1966: Sociofinguisiics: proceedings o f the UCLA Sociolin­
guistics Conference, 1964. (Ja n u a Lin g u a r u m Se r ie s Ma jo r 2 0 .) T he Hague :
Mouton.
Br itt on, Ja me s N, 1 9 7 0 L anguage and learning. Lo n d o n : Alie n La ne (P e ng uin
Pre s s ).
Brown Roger and Gilman, Albert i960: ‘The pronouns of power and solidarity*. In
T ho ma s A. Se be o k (e d .) Style in language. Ca m b r id g e , Mas s . a nd Ne w Yo r k
MIT Press and Wiley. Also in Fishman 1968; Giglioli 1972.
Buhle r , Ka r l 1 9 3 4 Sprachtheorier die D arstellungsfunkuon der Spmche. Je n a
F is c he r

C a s t a n c d a > C a r lo s 1 9 7 1 : A sep ar ate reality ; f u r th er co n v ersati o n s w-tth D on Ju an .

Ne w Yo r k : Simo n & Schus te r . (P o c ke t Bo o ks 19 72.)
Ce de r gr e n, He nr ie tta a nd Sa nko ff, Da v id 1974: ^Var iable rule s : pe r for ma nce as a
s tatis tical r e fle ction o f c ompe te ncc '. L anguage 50.
Chabrol^ C. and Marin* L, (cds.) 1911: S含miodque narrative: r^cits bib ⼁丨
Ufues. (Lan-
gag^s 22.) Paris: Didier^Larousse.
Cic our e l, Aa r o n V* 1969; 'Ge n e r a tiv e s e mantics and the s tructure o f s ocial imcrac-
(ion1. In fniernaiional days of socioiinguistics.
Cla r k, Eve V. 1973: W h a t s in a w o r d? O n the c h ild a c quis ition o f s cmaniics in his
first language*. InT . E. Moore (ed,), Cognitive development and the acquisition
o f language. Ne w Yo r k : Ac a d e m ic Press,
Co n k lin , Ha r o ld C, 1968: 4Le x icogr aphic a I tr e a tm e nt o f folk t a x o n o m ie s . In Fis h­
man 1968,
Co u llh a r d , R. M ,ySinclair , J .M c H .. Fors yth, I, J . and As h b y , M . C 1972: ‘Dis cour s e
in the clas s room . Lo ndo n: C tntre for In fo r m a t io n on La ngua ge T e a c hing and
Re s e ar ch. (Mim e o .)

DaneS, Frantifiek (ed,) 1974: Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague:

Ac a de mia (Cze c ho s lo va k Ac a de my o f Scie nce s ),
Dix o n, Ro b e r t M, W. 1965: W hat is language? a new approach to linguistic descrip^
tion. (Lo n g m a n Linguis tics Lib r a r y .) Lo n d o n : Lo ng m a n .
— 1970: The Dy irbai language o f North Queensland, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­
versity Press.
Do ughty , Pe te r S.» Pe arce , Jo h n J. and T h o r n to n , Ge o ffr e y M. 1971: L anguage in
use. (Schools Council Programme in Linguistics and English Teaching.) Lon­
don: Edward Arnold.
— 1972: Ex ploring language. (Explorations in Language Study.) London: Edward
Arnold.
Dougla s , Ma r y 1971: ‘D o dogs la ug h? a cros s - cultural a p p r o a c h to body s ymbolis m'.
Journal o f Psychosomatic Research 15.
— 1972: ‘Speech class and Basil Bernste in' London: The Listener 2241 (9 March).
— (e d.) 1973: Rules and meanings: the anthropology o f everyday knowledge, (P e n­
guin Mo d e r n Sociology Re a ding s .) Ha r mo nd s w o r th: P e ng uin.
Du m o n i, Louis 1970: Homo hierarchicus: (he caste system and its im plications.
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. (London: Granada (Paladin) 1972.)
238 Re fe re nce s

Ellis , Je ffr e y 1965: 'Linguis tic s ociology a nd ins titutio na l linguis tics 9. L inguistics 19.
⼀一 1966: ‘O n c ontc x iua l m e a n in g ’. In C. E . Baze ll e t al. (e ds .) In memory o f J. R.
Firth. (Lo n g m a n Linguis tics Lib r a r y .) Lo n d o n : Lo ng m a n .
Elmenoufy, Afaf 1969: A study o f the roie o f intonation in the grammar o f English.
Unive r s ity o f Lo nd o n P h D thesis.
Enkvis t, Nils Erik* Spe nce r , Jo h n a n d Gr e g o r y Mic ha e l J. 1964: L inguisiics and
style‘ (La ngua ge a nd La ngua ge Le a r n ing 6 .) Lo n d o n : Ox fo r d Unive r s ity
Press.
Er vin- T r ipp, Sus an M. 1969: *Sociolinguisiics\ A dvances in Expercmentai Sociai
Psychology 4 Als o in F is h ma n 1971 b.
⼀一 1972: 'Children's sociolinguistic competence and dialect diversity*. In Early
childhood education. Chic a go: Na tio n a l Socie ly for the Study o f E d uc a tio n .
(71st Yearbook)
⼀一 1 9 7 3 L anguage acquisition and communicaiive choicc: essays scU cted and intro­
duced by A nw ar S, Oil. Sta nfor d, Ca lifo r n ia : Sta nfor d Unive r s ity Press.

Fa s old Ra lp h W . 1970: ‘T w o mode s o f s ocially s ignifica nt linguis tic v a r ia tio n ’.

L anguage 46.
Fe r gus on, Cha r le s A, 1968: ‘Langua_ge d e v e lo p m e n t1. In Jo s h ua A. F is hma n, J. Das
Gupla and Charles A, Ferguson (eds+), Language problems o f developing
nations. Ne w Yo r k : Wile y .
— 1 9 7 1 a ^Abs e nce o f c o p ula and the n o t io n o f s implic ity ’. In Hy me s 1971b.
⼀一 1 9 7 lb : L anguage structure and language use: essays selected and introduced by
A nw ar S. Oil. Stanford* Ca lifo r n ia : St a nfo r d Unive r s ity Press.
Fe rgus ori. Cha r le s A. a nd Farwe ll, Ca r o l B+ 1973: ‘Wo r d s and s ounds in e ar ly
language ac quis ition: Englis h initia l c ons o na nts in the firs t fifty wor ds '. Papers
and Reports on Child Language Development 7. Stanford, California: Stanford
Unive r s ity Co m m itt e e o n Linguis tics .
Firbas , Ja n 1964: ‘On d e fin in g the the me in func tio na l s e nte nce analys is 1. Travaux
L inguistiques de Prague 1,
⼀一 1968: *On the prosodic features of the Modern English finite verb as means of
functional sentence perspective' Brno Studies in English 7.
Fir th, y R. 1935: T h e te chnique o f s e mantics '. Transactions o f the Philological
Society. Als o in F ir t h 1957-
— 1950: 'Personality and language in society1. The Sociological Review 42. Also in
' Finh 1957.
— 1957: Papers in linguistics 1934- 195L London: Oxford University Press.
Fi&hman, Joshua A. (ed.) 1968: Readings in the sociology o f language. The Hague
Mo ut o n .
⼀一 1971a: The sociology of language: an interdisciplinary sociat science approach to
language in society'. In Fishman 1971b.
⼀一 e d.) 1971b- : A dvances in the sociology o f language 1. T he Ha gue : Mo u t o n .
Fishman Joshua A. and Lueders- Salmon, Erika 1972: 4What has the sociology of
language to say to the teacher? On teaching the standard variety to speakers of
dia le c ta l o r s ociolcctal va r ie tic s '. In Co u r t n e y Ca zd e n Ve r a P‘ Jo h n a n d De U H.
Hy me s (e ds .), Functions o f language in the classroom. Ne w Yo r k : T e ache rs
Colle ge Press.
Five tc nine: aspects o f Junction and structure in the spoken language o f elementary
 Re fe re nce s 239

school children. T o r o nto 1972: Yo r k Unive r s ity a n d Bo a r d o f Ed u c a t io n for che

Bo r o ug h o f No r th Yo r k (Englis h De p a r tm e n t)
F la v e lU . H ., Bo t k in P. T ” F r y C , C . , Jr ., Wr ig h t , J. W . and Ja r vis , P. E. 1968; The
development o f roie- taking and comm unication s k iih in chiidren. New Yor k
Wiley,
Frake, Charles O. 1961: ‘The diagnosis of disease among (he Subanun of Mindanao*.
American A nthropologist 63. Als o in Hymes 1964.
Fricdrich, Paul 1966: Structural implications of Russian pronominal usage ’ In
Bright 1966.

Garfinke l Ha ⼁丨old 1967: Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice- Hall.
Oarvin, Paul and Maihiot, Madeleine 1956: ‘The urbanization of tKe Guarani
language: a problem in language and culture,. In A. F. C, Wallace (ed.)» Men
and cultures: selected papers o f the 5th Im e rnationai Congress o f Ant-
hropologica! and Ethnological Sciences. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl­
vania Press.
Giglioli> Pier Paolo (cd.) 1972: Language and social context. (Penguin Modern
Sociology Re a d ing s .) Har mond&wor th: Pe nguin.
Goffman» Erving 1963: Sf/g/nfl notes on the management of spoiled identity.
Engle w o od Cliffs , NJ: Pr e ntice - HalL
Go r m a n, T. P. 1971: S o c io ling uis tic implic a tions o f a choice o f m e d ia o f ins truct ion*.
In Whitc lc y 1971.
Gre e nbe r g* Jos e ph 1963: Essays in linguistics. Ch ic a g o and L o n d o n Unive r s iiy o f
Chic a g o Press. (P ho e nix Boo ks .)
Gregory, Michael 1967:(Aspects of varieties diffe ntiation^. Journal o f Linguistics
3.
Greimas, A. J. 1969: *Des modeks theorique- sen sociolinguistiquc' In Internationai
days o f sociolinguistics.
⼀一 1971: 1Narrative grammar: units and kvcls\ Modern Language Notes 86(6).
Grimshaw, Allen 1971: ‘Sociolinguistics' In Fishman 1971b.
Gum p e r z, Jo h n J . 1968; 4T he s pe e ch c o m m u n it y ' In Internationa! encyclopedia of
the sociai sciences. New Y ork: M acmillan.
— 1971: L anguage in social groups: essays selected and introduced by A nw ar S. £>ii
Stanford California: Stanford University Press,
Gum p e r z, Jo h n J , and Hyme s , De ll H. (e ds .) 1972: D irections in sociolinguistics.
New York: Hoh, Rinehart & Winston.
Gum p e r z, Jo h n J* a nd Wils o n , Ro b e r t 1971: ‘Conve r ge nce a n d c r e o lizatio n: a case
from Ihe Indo- Aryan^Dravidian border*. In Hymes 1971b.

Ha llida y , M. A, K. 1967 a: Gram m ar, society and the noun. Lo n d o n : H, K, Le wis (for
University Colkge London).
— 1967b: Intonation and gram m ar in B ritish English. (Ja n u a Lin g u a r u m Series
Pr aciica 4 8 .) T he !Ha.gue: Mo u t o n .
— 1967c: Note s o n tr a ns itivity a nd Ihe me in Englis h, Pzr t 2\ Journal o f L inguistics
3.
— 1969: ‘Funclionai diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of modality
and mood in English'. Foundations o f Language 6. Exccrpi in Halliday 1976,
240 Re fe re nce s

— 1970: A course in spoken English intonation. L ondon: Oxford University Press.

Ex c e r pt in Ha llid a y 1976.
⼀一 1971: ‘Linguis tic func tio n and lite r ary s tyle : an inquir y into the langua ge of
W illia m Go ld in g 's The Inheritors*. In Se y mo ur Ch a t m a n (e d .). L iterary style: a
symposium. Ne w Yo r k : Ox fo r d Unive r s ity Press. Als o in Ha llid a y 1973,
— 1972: T owards a sociological semantics. (Working Papers and Prepublications,
Se rie s C, 14.) Unive r s ity d i Ur bino* C e n t io Inte r na zio na le di Se miotic a e di
Linguistica. Also in Halliday 1973.
— 1973 Explorations in the functions o f language. (Ex p lo r a tio n s in Language
Study.) London: Edward Arnold.
⼀一1^75a; Learning how to mean: ex plorations in the development o f language.
(Explorations in Language Study.) London: Edward Arnold.
— 1975b: *Le a r ning how to me an'. In Er ic and Eliza be th Le nne be r g (e ds . )* Foun-
dafions of lartgiwge development a multidiscipiinary approach. N e w Yo rk:

Ac a de m ic Pre s s /Paris : U N E S C O Press.

— 1975c: eTa}king one's way in: a sociolinguistic perspective on language and
learning*. In Alan Davies (cd.)t Problems o f language and learning. London:
Heinemann, in association with the SSRC and SsRE.
⼀一 1976: System and function in tanguage; selected papers, e d. Gu n t h e r Kress.
London: Oxford University Press*
— 1977: 'T ype s o f linguis tic s tr uctur e , a n d the ir func tio na l o r ig in s ' (Mim e o .)
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya 1976: Cohesion in English. (English Lan­
guage Series 9.) London: Longman.
Ha llida y , M. A. K., Mc In to s h , Ang us a n d Stre ve ns , Pe te r 1964: The linguisiic
sciences and ianguage teaching. (Longman Linguistics Library.) London;
Longman. (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press 1966.)
Harman, Thomas 1567: A Caveat or Witrening for Commen Cursetores vuigarely
called V agabones. Lo nd o n: Wy llia m Gr y ffit h , In c lu d e d as 4A cavcat for com­
mon cursitors" in Ge mini Salg^do (ed.), Cony~ Catchers and Bawdy Baskets: an
Qrtthoiogy o f Elizabethan low life. (Penguin English Library.) Harmondsworth
Penguin 1972,
Ha s a n, Ru q a iy a 1971 ‘Rim e a nd re as on in lite r ature ^. In Se y mo ur Cha t m a n
Literary style: a symposium. New York: Oxford University Press.
— 1973: 'Code> register and social diale ct' In Bernstein 1973.
Haugen, Einar 1966: 'Diatecr, language, nation*. American A nthropologist 68. Also
in An w a f S, Dit (e d.), The ecology o f language: essays by Einar Haugen.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press 1972.
Hawking Peter R. 1969: ‘Social class, the nominal group and refe re nee *'L anguage
and Speech 12. Als o in Be r ns te in 1973.
Hill. T r e vor 1958: 'Ins titutio na l Linguis tics *. Orbis 7.
Hje lms le v, Lo uis 1961: Prolegomena to a theory o f language. Re vis e d Englis h
edition tr. Francis J. Whitfield, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. (Or ig­
inal Danish version 1943.)
Hoenigswald, Henry 1971: ‘Language history and creole studies1. In Hyme<
1971b.
Huddle s to n, Ro d ne y D . 1965: ‘Ra n k a nd d e p t h 1. L anguage 41.
Hud s o n Ric h a r d A. 1967: 'Co ns titue nc y in a s ys te mic de s c r iption o f the Englis n
c la u s e ' L ingua 18.
 Re fe re nce s 241

⼀一1971: English complex sentences: an introduction to system ic gram mar. (Linguis tic
Se rie s 4.) Ams te r da m: No r th Ho lla nd .
Hyme s , De ll H. (e d .) 1^64 : L anguage in culture and society; a reader in linguistics
and anthropology. Ne w Yor k: Ha r pe r & Ro w .
⼀一 1966; 'Two types of linguistic relativity (wiih examples from Amerindian cthno*
graphy ⼴广In Bright 1966.
⼀一 19- 67: *Mo d e ls of inte r a ction o f language a n d s ocial setting*. Journal o f Sociai
Issues 23.
⼀一 1969: Linguistic theory and (he functions of speech5. Ln fntem atioruii days o f
sociolinguistics.
— J9 7 Ja : Co mpe te nc e a nd pe r for manc e in linguis tic ihe o r y 5. ln Re nir a Hu r le y and
Elis a be th Ingr am (e ds ,), L anguage acquisition: models and methods. Lo nd o n
a nd Ne w Yo r k : Ac a de m ic Press.
⼀一 (e d.) 19 71b. Pidgimzation and creohzaiion o f languages. Ne w Yo r k ; Ca mbr idg e
Unive r s ity Press,

inte rnational days o f sociolinguistics^ Rom€ 1969: Luigi Sturzo Institute.

Ja ko bs o n. Ro m a n 1960; 'Clos ing s ta te me nt: linguis tics and poe tics 1. In T ho ma s A.

Se be ok (e d .). Style in language. Ca m b r id g e , Mas s , and Ne w Yo r k : MIT Press
and Wile y.
Joos , Ma r lin 1962; The five clocks. S up p le m e n t 22 to International Journal of
A merican L inguisiics 28 (5 )+

Koc hma n, T homa s 1972: Rappin' and styiinr out: communicotion in urban Black
A merica. U r b a n a Illinois a n d Chic ago: Un iv c r s ily o f Illino is Press.
Kr i&hnamur thi, Bh a d r ir a ju 1962: A survey o f Teiugu dialect vocabulary. Re pr inte d
fr om A Teiugu dialect diciionary o f occupational terms, 1: A griculture.
Hyde r a ba d: The An d h r a Pr ade s h Sa hity a Ak a d e m i.

Labov, Willia m 1966: The social stratification of English in New Y ork City. Wa s h ing ­
ton, DC : Ce nte r for Ap p lie d Linguis tics .
⼀一 1969: ‘Co ntr a c t io n de le tion, a nd inhe r e nt va r ia tio n o f the Englis h copula'.
L anguage 45.
— 1970a: ‘T he s tudy o f language in its s ocial c onte x t ’ Siudium Generate 23, Als o in
Fis hma n 1971; Gig lio li 1972.
1970b: 'The logic of Non- Standard English'. Georgetown University Mono­
⼀一
graph Series on Languages and Linguistics 22. Also in Williams 1970; Giglioli
1972.
— 1971; 'The notion of “system” in creole languages1. In Hymes 1971b.
La bov, Willia m a nd Wa le tzky Jo s h ua 1 9 6 7 ‘Na r r a tive analys is : or al ve rs ions of
pe r s onal e x pe r ie nc e In June He lm (e d .), Essays on the verbal and visuai arts,
Se attle : Unive r s ity o f Wa s hing to n Press.
Lamb’ Sydney M. 1966: *Epiiegomena to a theory of language*. Romance Phitoiogy
9.
⾥里里
— 1971: 'L inguistic and cognitive networks'. In Paul Garvi n (ed.). Cognition a
multiple view. Ne w Yo r k ; Spa r ta n Books .
— 1974: Dis cus s ion, ln Par r e t 1974.
242 Re fe re nce s

Levi- Strauss, Clau<Je 1966: The savage mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
(Original French version La pens^e sauvage, 1962.)
Lo flin , Ma r vin D. 1969: ‘Ne g r o nons ta nda r d a nd s ta nda r d Englis h: s ame o r diffe r e nt
de e p s tructure ?* O rbis 18.

Mc Da v id , Ra ve n L and Mc Da v id , Vir g inia G. 1951: T h e r e la tio ns hip o f the speech

o f Am e r ic a n Ne gr oe s to the s pe e ch o f white s ’ In Wa ll Wo lfr a m a n d No n a H.
Cla r ke (e ds .). Black-w hite speech relationships. Wa s h ing to n DC : Ce m e r for
Ap p lie d Linguis tics .
Mc ln io s h , Ang us 1963: *As You L ike h; a g r a mma tic a l clue lo cha r acte r '. A Review
o f English L iterature 4. Als o in Ang us Mc In to s h a n d M . A , K, Ha llid a y , Patterns
o f language: essays in theoretical^ descriptive and applie d linguistics. (Longman
Linguis tics Lib r a r y ,) Lo nd o n : Lo n g m a n . Blo o m in g t o n t Ind ia na : In d ia n a U n i­
ve rs ity Press 1966,
Mac kay , Da v id , T h o m p s o n Br ia n and Sc h a ub , P a me la 1970: B reakthrough to
liseracy, (Schools Co u n c il P r o g r a mme in Linguis tics a nd Englis h T e a ching.)
Lo nd o n : Lo n g m a n . Gle n d a le , Ca lifo r n ia : Bo w m a r 1973.
Malinowski, Bronislaw 1923: *The problem of meaning in primitive languages'
Supplement 1 io C, K. Ogden and 1. A. Richards, The meaning o f meaning.
(Inte rnalional Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method.) Lon-
don: Kegan Paul.
— 1 9 3 5 Coral gardens and their magic^ 2. Lo n d o n : A lk n & Unw in/ Ne w Yo r k :
Am e r ic a n Bo o k Co .
Ma llik , Bha ktipr a s a d 1972: L anguage of the underw orld o f West Bengal. (Re s e a r c h
Series 7 6 .) Ca lc utta : Sans kr it C o lk g e .
MiHigan, Spike 1973: M ore Goon Sho%v scripts; w ritten and selected by Spike M il-
figanTwith a forew ord by HRH The Prince o f Waies. London: Sphere Books.
Mitc he ll, T. F. 1957: *The language o f buying a nd s e lling in Cyr e na ic a: a s itua tio na l
s t ate me nt’ H esperis. Als o in Mitc he ll 1975.
— 1975: Principles o f Ffrihian lingulsU ct (Lo n g m a n Linguis tics Libr a r y .) Lo ndo n:
Longma n.
Morris, Desmond 1967: The naked ape. London: Cape.
Morris, Robert W, 1975: ^Linguistic problems encountered by contemporary cur­
riculum development projects in mathematics'. Interactions between linguistics
and maihematicat education; final report o f the symposium sponsored by
UNESCO, CEDO and ICM I, Nairobip Kenya, 1- 11 September 1974. Working
Docume ni E D- 74/CONF, 808/9. Paris: UNESCO,

Nelsoru Katherine 1973: Structure and strategy for ie am in 容to talk. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development 38.
Ne us tupny» JiH V , 1971: 'T ow ar ds a m o d e l o f linguis tic dis tance*. L inguistic Com-
tnuncattons 5 (Mo n a s h Unive r s ity).

Parret, Herman 1974: Discussing language. (Janua Linguarum Series Maior 93.)
T he Ha gue : Mo u t o n .
Pike , Ke n n e t h L. 1959: ‘La ngua ge as par ticle , wave a nd fie ld T exas Quarterly 2.
Podgor e c ki. Ad a m 1973: ‘ “ Se c ond life ” a nd its im plic a tio ns 1. (Mim e o ,)
 Re fe re nce s 243

Re ic h, P e t e r A . 1970: ‘Re la t io n a l ne twor ks '. Canadian Journal o f L inguistics

15.
Re id, T . B* W. 1956: ‘Linguis tic s s tr uciur atis m, p h ilo lo g y 1. A rchivum U tt^uisticuFn
8.
Ru b in , Jo a n 1968: ^Bilingual usage in P a r a g ua y ’ In F is hma n 1968.

Sacks , Harvey* Sche gloff. E m a n ue l A. a n d Je ffe r s on, Ga il 1974; *A s imple s t sys-

te ma iic s for the or g a niza tio n o f tur n- taking in c onve r s a tio n . L anguage 50.
Sanko- ft Gillian 1974: 4A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative
compe te nce ' In Richard Bauman and Joel Sh«rzcr (eds.) Ex plorations in the
ethnography o f speaking. Ca mb r id g e : Ca mb r id g e Unive r s ity Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1971: 'Notes on a conversational practice: formulating
place '. In D, S ud n o w (e d,)* Studies in social interaction. Gle n c o e t Illinois ; Fre e
Press. Als o in Gig lio li 1972.
Shuy, Roger, W, Wolfram, Walter A. and Riley, William 1967: Linguistic correlates
o f social stratification in De troit speech, US Office of Education Cooperative
Research Project 6- 1347 (final report).
Sinclair, J. McH. 1972; A course in spoken English: gram m ar London: Oxford
University Press,
Sinc la ir J. Mc H., Fors yth, L Co ult h a r d t R. M, and As hb y , M. 1972: The Engfish
used by teachers and pupils. Unive r s ily o f Bir m in g h a m : De p a r t m e n t o f Englis h
La ngua ge a nd Lite r a tur e .
Sinclair , I. Mc H., Jone s , S. a n d Da le y , R. 1970: English lexical studies. Unive r s ity of
Birmingham: Department of English Language and Literature,
Spcnce r , Jo h n and Gr e g or y , Mic ha e l J* 1964: lA n a ppr o a c h t o the s tudy o f s tyle '. In
Enkvis t et al. 1964.
Stewart, William 1970: ‘Sociolinguistic factors in the history of American Negro
dia le c ts ’. In Willia m s 1970.

T abe r , Char le s 1966: The structure o f Sango narrative. (Ha r t fo r d Studie s in L in ­

guis tics 17.) Ha r tfo r d , Conne c tic ut: H a n fo r d Se mina r y F o u n d a t io n .
T ur ne r , Ge offr e y J , 1973: 'Soc ia l class a nd c hild r e n’s language o f c ontr ol at age five
a nd age s e ve n’. In Be r ns te in 1973,
⼀一 (for thc o ming ): 'Soc ia l class diffe re nce s in the b e ha vio ur o f mothe r s in r e gulative
(s ocial c o ntr o l) s itua tio ns '. T o a ppe a r in The regulative context: a sociolmguistic
enquiry.

Ure, Jean N. 1971: ‘Lexical density and register differentiation1. In G. E. Perren and
J. L. M. Trim (e ds ), Applications o f linguistics; selected papers o f the 2nd
im ernational Congress o f A pplied L inguistics, Cambridge 1969, Ca mbr idg e :
Cambridge Univcrsily Press.
Ure , Je a n a nd Ellis , Je ffr e y 1 9 7 4 ‘El re gis lro e n la lingiiis lic a de s criptiva y e n la
sociologia linguistica1. ln La sociolinguistica actual: algunos de sus probiemas,
piameamientos y soluciortes, ed. Oscar Uribe- Villegas. Mexico: Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico 115- 64. English version 4Register in descrip­
tive linguistics and linguistic sociology1. In Issues in sociolinguistics ed. Oscar
Uribe- Villegas. The Hague: Mouton (in press).
244 Re fe re nce s

Vachck, Jos^f 1966: The linguistic school o f Prague. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana
University Press.
Va illa nd, R. 1958: The law, Lo n d o n : Ca p e . Ex ce rpt in Do ug la s 1973-
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1972: Some aspects o f texi grammars: a study in theoredcat
linguistics and poetics. The Hague: Moulon.

We ge ne r P h ilip p 1885: U mersuchungen tiber die Grandfragen der Sprachfebens,

Halle.
Weinreich> Uriel* Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin J. 1968: ^Empirical foun­
dations for a theory of language change\ In W, P, Lehmann and Y. Maikiel
(eds*) Directions fo r historical linguistics a symposium. Aus tin Texas: Uni­
versity of Texas Press.
We x le r P. J. 1955: L a form ation 4u vocabuiaire des chemirts de fer en France
( / 7 7 8 - I 8 4 2 ). G e n e v a ; D r o ii/ L illc ; G ia r d .
White le y . Wilfr e d H* (e d .) 1971: L anguage use and sociai change: problem s of
miMUngualism wirh special reference to eastern Africa, London: Oxford Uni­
versity Press (for Int&rnationaS African Institute).
Whorf* Benjamin Lee 1956: Language thought and reality: selected writings, ed.
John B. Carroll. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Williams, Frederick (ed.) 1970a: Language and poverty: perspectives on a theme.
Chicago: Markham.
— 1970b: ^Language, attitude and social change' In Williams 1970a.
William^ Frederick and Naremore, R, C. 1969: ‘On the functional analysis of social
class differences in modes of speech \ Speech Monographs 36(2).
Wolfram, Wall 1971: *Social dialects from a linguistic perspective'. In Sociolin­
guistics; q crossdisciptinary perspective, Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.

Zu m t h o r , P a ul 1972: Poitique m idiivale, Paris : Se uil.

Index of subjects

accent 25, 26 , 106, 161- 2, 209, dis cours e , language 215, 2 2 8 ’

234 232
acce ptability SS, 51 clause 8 1 ,8 4 , 113, 129, 1 3 5 4
actual, actualization 4 0 ,5 1 - 2 117 —comple x 129- 30
age nt 4 5 80, 84 116, 129 ~ g r a m m a r 135
ambiguity 202 ⼀一type , see procces type
anaphora, anaphoric 117 code (i) 25, 2 7 31 67, 8 6 ^ , 9 1
antilanguage 164- 82, 185 98, 106 111, 123, 125’ 181
antis ocie ty 164, 167- 8, 175 e la bor ate d 2 6 68, 86- 8, 101- 2
178- 9 184 restricted 26, 6 8 86^8, 101- 2
appos ition 4 9 , 129, 149 code (ii):
arbitrary* arbitrarine s s 44- 5 78 ~ s h ift 65- ^
areal affinity 77- 8, 199 ⼀一s witching (see als o dialect
attitude s to language 66, 94- 5, s witching) 65
104- 7 155, 158 ’ 161- 3, 179, coding (see als o r e alization) 3 9
184, 21 0 233- 5 71, 173, 180 187
cohe s ion 6 4 , 117 133- 4, 144, 148
be haviour pote ntial 21, 39, 4 2 ,8J (see als o co njunc tion, ellipsis,
be haviour is m 54 le xical collocation, lexical
bor r owing 172, 195 re pe tition^ reference, s ubs titu­
B re ak through io Lite racy 205—10, tion)
228 coining 196, 201
collocation 117 203
calquing 195 colour te rms 198
careful speech 156 co mmunic a tion ne twor k 154, 230,
casual: 232
— conve rs ation 169- 70 180 communicativc:
~ s pe e c h 156 ⼀一compe te nce 32 37^8, 61, 92,
Ce nte r for Applie d Linguis tics 93 94- 5, 99
characte rology \ 77 ~ d y na m is m 150
choice (see als o o ptio n) 149, 187 compe ns atory pr ogramme s 97
grammatical 113 compe te nce 17 2St 3S 51, 85 92
s e mantic 1 0 9 ,1 2 2 ,1 3 7 ,1 50 208 communicative 3 2 3 7 —8 61,
clas s room: 92, 9 4 ^5 99
— as centre o f language research comple x (c la us e ~ g r o u p ^ ) 129-
211- 35 131 132
246 Inde x of s ubje cts
c ompo und, c ompounding 172,
L77, 196
c ondition(a l) 49 84
congrue nce 156, 180
co njunc tion 117 144
co nnota tion 148 166, 175
cons titue ncy, cons titue nt s tructure
(see als o gr ammatical struc­
ture ) 4 0 4 1 130*31, 188
conte nt 5 3 ,5 6 ,7 1 ^7 5 ,7 8 ,1 8 7 ,2 2 3
context, social conte xt (see als o
s ituation type ) 13, 30 42,
79- 81, 9 0 109- 11, 113- 22
189' 208, 214
citational 109
critical s ocializing 30, 37, 46,
88 90- 91 105 122 140, 214
ima ginative /innovating 30
ins tr uctional 30, 80- 81
inte rpe r s onal 30
ope r a tional 108- 9, 113
re gulative 3 0 7 9 , 80, 88
context:
~ o f culture 65 f 68- 9, 1 0 9 ,1 2 4 ,
147
~ o f s itua tio n 22 28- 31, 32- 5,
6 8 ,7 2 109,12 2, 1 2 4 ,1 3 4 ,1 3 9 ,
142 147 150 192> 222, 227-
230
continuity:
func tiona l 71, 90- 91
cultur al 106 171 —2 209
control s trate gie s 114 214
impe r ative 79, 82
persona] 79 83» 87n
pos itional 79, 83, 87n
conve rge nce 155
conve rs ation 134 140, 1 4 7 150,
169- 70 177 180
coor dination 49, 129, 148
co- text 133
cre oJization 78
culture >see s ocial system
de clarative 80 ,8 1 ,8 4 ,9 1 * 148*149
de cr e olization 96
de ficit the ory 16, 2 3 95, 102- 4,
209
deixis 6 4 132
de licacy 4 3 44
de nota tion 148 166, 175
de ve lopme ntal functions 19- 20,
53- 5 70- 72, 121, 212- 13 (see
als o he uris tic imaginative , in-
for ma tive, ins tr ume ntal, in •
te ractional, pe rs onal, r e gula­
tor y)
diale ct, diale ctal variety/varia-
tion 26, 33- 4, 104- 6, 110,
157- 8t 183—5, 190- 91, 225
⼀一prime rs 209
— s witching 34, 9 5 217, 219
e thnic 98
re gional (ge ographical) 66, 225
rural 98, 104, 154- 5, 157, 216
social 6 6 ( 86, 93- 100 103 113
159 178- 9, 181 184- 5, 225
ur ban 9 7 , 104, 216- 17
diale ctology 10 96, 154- 5 183
190, 216
dialogue 71, 117 121 146, 177
diffe re nce the ory 23- 4, 95, 9 8
102’ 104- 5
diglos s ia 65- 6, 182
discourse (see als o te xt) 109, 134
(see als o fie ld o f dis cours e ,
mode o f dis cours e , te nor of dis-
cours e )
dis tance , linguis tic 7 8 157 197- 9
dive rge nce 155
dive r s ification 4 4 138
divis ion o f lab o ur 113, 186
e ducational process/system 87,
101 104, 106, 209—10 2 1 1
235
e llips is 64, 117 144
e ncoding (see als o r e alization) 21,
39^43, 134f 140, 188, 208
e ndophor a e ndophor ic 148
e ntr y condition (t o a s ystem) 41,
128

e nvironme ntalis t vie w 16- 17
e thnic:
~ d ia le c t 98
~ g r o u p 102- 3
e thnography o f s pe aking 61 95
exchange o f me anings 1 36 1 39-
141 143, 163 166 171 181,
189 191 196, 206
cxophora, e xophoric 64 117
e xpe rie ntial (func t ion, c o m po ­
ne nt) 48, 6 3 112 128- 33,
143 166, 180, 187- 9
expression 53 56 71, 7 5 ,7 8 ,1 8 7
failure:
e ducational 23- 4, 68, 87 95,
98’ 101- 7, 163
language , linguis tic 2 3 102- 7
family role system 67 88, 91, 99,
113 123, 125
fas hions of s pe aking {see als o
s e mantic s tyle ) 24*5, 76 81
fiction 145- 7
fie ld o f discourse 3 3 62™4, 110,
113 115- 17, 123, 125 1 4 3 4
146 189 ’ 221- 2, 225
folk linguis tics 21 40 122, 207,
235
folk tax onomie s 76
for e gr ounding (see als o p r o m i­
ne nce ) 137- 8, 149,
169- 70 180
for m, for mal level 56- 7, 115’ 187
for mality level o f 3 2 ,7 4 ,1 1 0 , 224
functional approach 16, 72, 180,
194- 5
~ t o language 2 5 ,4 5 ,5 3 6 3 ,8 9 ,
186
— to language de ve lopme nt 18-
21, 52- 6, 212
func tiona l compone nts (o f s e man­
tics; see als o me tafunctions )
27’ 4 5 54- 6, 6 3 7 0 72 90
99, 112, 115- 16 121- 5 128-
132, 135, 150 180, 183, 186-
189, 191
Inde x of s ubje cts 247
functional te nor 224—5
functions of language 16 21- 2,
27- 31, 45- 7 53- 6, 72 94,
105- 6, 121- 2 194 213 (see
als o (i) de ve lopme nta l func ­
tions ; (ii) macr ofunctions ; (iii)
me tafunctions , func tiona l c o m ­
pone nts o f se mantics )
be haviour al 95
cognitive 95
communicative 50
co native 48
expressive 4 8 49- 50
re fe r e ntial 4 8 , 72
re pre s e ntational 48, 49
social 49, 72
socio- expressive 49, 63
ge nre , generic 61- 3 133 145
^form 138
~ s tr uc tur e 133- 4, 136
ge s ture 1 9 ,3 7
ghe tto language 179, 185
give n (e le me nt) 148
glos s e matics 137
goal 45, 116
gobble dygook 177
good re as on principle 133
Go one r y 178» 180
grammar , gr ammatical 20 39,
156, 43- 7, 102- 3 165 {see als o lex-
icogravnmar)
~ c la s s 47
⼀一func tion 45, 47
~ s tr uc tur e (see als o cons titue nt
s tructure ) 4 1 145, 56, 133, 148,
188 196- 7 207
~ s ys te m, see le xicogrammati-
cal system
gr ammaticality 38 51
he s itating 200
he uris tic func tion 19, 3 0 55, 71
221
hypotaxis , hypotactic 49, 84, 129
248 Inde x o f subje cts

ide alization in linguis tics 17 37- 8, key (as gr a mmatica l s ystem) 64,
52, 57 1 9 2 203 144, 187
ide ational (function, c ompone nt) kins hip te rms 75, 198
4 5 ,4 8 5 6 ,6 3 ,7 0 ,7 2 ,1 1 2 ,1 1 6 -
118 123 125 128- 33, 241, language :
149, 187- 9 ⼀一as action ⼴广doing' (see als o
illiteracy 206 pragmatic func tion) 7 1 121
imaginative func tion 20 55 71 —as b e h a v io ur knowle dge or
90 a n 10- 11
impe rative 6 4 80, 81, 84 ⼀一as ins titution (see als o ins titu­
implic ation o f utte rance 133 tiona l linguis tics ) 105, 162.
indicative 80, 84 183- 6, 199 204
infor mation: ⼀一as inte raction 18, 36- 8, 139,
— focus 61’ 63» 132 219
~ s tr uc tur e 117, 131—3, 148 T —as me ans o f le ar ning 20—21,
202 30- 31 202- 3
~ s ys te m 131, 133 144 —as re fle ction/*thinking' (s^e als o
— unit 132- 3 mathe tic function) 7 1 121
informative func tion 20^ 116, ⼀一as re source or rule 17, 191- 2
221 _ as system (see als o linguis tic sys­
in&tance, ins tantial 40 te m) 1 0 - 1 1 ,3 9 ,5 3 ,1 6 2 ,1 8 3 ,
ins tr ume ntal func tion 19 55 71 186- 9, 199, 204 205
inte r a c ta nt (see als o p a r t ic ip a nt ) —tn (o f) action 3 2 224
61- 2 —in e ducation 23- 4, 2S y 57,
inte ract io n (linguis tic/ve r bal) 1&, 101- 7, 199- 200
38, 5 1 6 0 , 67 97, 139 150, ⼀一in individual life and de ve lop­
170 200, 219 me nt 14, 200- 201, 219- 27
clas s room 80- 81, 94 (see als o language de ve lop­
inte ractional func tion 19T 31, 55, me nt)
71 90 — in social conte xt 9- 11, 15,23,
ime r nationa l language 199 204 27- 35, 36- 7, 79^84, 112 117
inter- organism 10 12- 16 37- 8’ 139^42, 227- 33
49, 56- 7, 92 functions of 16, 21- 2 27—31,
inte rpe rs onal (function, c o mpo ' 45- 7, 53- 6, 72 94, 105- 6,
ne nt) 46’ 48} 5 0 56> 63, 70 121- 2’ 194 213
72, 90, 112, 116- 17, 119 123 uses of 28 34, 4 6 52- 4, 9 9
125, 128- 33 141, 143- 1, 166 1 1 2 122
170- 71’ 180 187- 9 language acquis ition (see als o la n ­
inte rrogative 81 9 1 148 guage de ve lopme nt: childr e n)
inte r ve ntion pr ogr amme s 93 1 6 ,5 2 - 3
intona tion 54—5, 6 4 71 11 5 ,1 2 1 , language de ve lopme nt (c hildr e n)
131- 3 161, 171 221 16- 21 52^6, 90 115 121- 2,
Intra- organis m 10, 12- 13, 37- 8, 135, 211- 13
4 9 ’ 56- 7, 92 language de ve lopme nt (na tio na l)
7 6 194- 7
jar gon 165 182’ 229 language diary 219- 20
 Inde x o f s ubje cts 249

language distance 199 204 121 123 128- 31, 134- 5’ 173’
Language in Use 211 228 187- 8 208
language planning 76, 197 linguis tic:
language s tatus 194, 199 204 (see ~ s ys te m 53, 56- 7* 62- 3, 67- 9,
also inte r national ⼁丨 anguage , 72 7 5 78 81 9 2 ,9 7 103 110,
local language nationa l lan­ 111- 15, 147 155- 6, 170,
guage , ne ighbour hood lan­ 179- 80, 186 ’ 209
guage , re gional language ) — units 129, 135 198
language te aching 5 7 linguistics :
language varie ties 10, 35, 74, 110 auto nomy o f 36
145* 157, 225 (see als o diale ct, branche s o f 10
register) his torical 10
language s : ins titutional 110
Be ngali 172- 5 ins tr ume ntality of 36
Chine s e 196, 198 status o f 38- 9, 56
Dutc h 194 lis te ning 212
Dy ir ba l 165 lite racy 57, 100 205
Englis h: lite rature , lite rary 11, 57- 8, 182
Black 9 3 9 6 ,1 0 2 ,1 6 1 - 2 ,1 7 9 — language 157
Car ibbe an 194 — text 70, 137- 8, 140 147
Eliza be than 89, 165, 175 genres o f 58
Old 195 local language 199, 218
Standard 94- 5 location, locative 117 129- 30
T r inidad 75 locutions 196
Fre nch 77, 196 logic (logicalne s s ) o f language 85-
Ge r m a n 75 86
Gr e e k 196 logical (function, c ompone nt) 48,
Gua r a ni 65 63 1 1 2 ,1 2 8 - 3 3 ,1 4 8 - 9 ,1 8 7 - 8
Japane s e 196
Ka nna da 77 macr ofunctions 50» 55 121 (see
La tin 195- 6 als o mathe tic, pragmatic)
Ma r a thi 77 mathe tic func tion of language 54-
Polis h 171 5 6 71, 90, 125
Rus s ian 7 5 196 me aning (see als o s e m a ntic (s ))
Swahili 65, 77 act of 139, 140, 206
T e lugu 76, 196 conaotative 166, 175
Ur du 77 de notative 166 175
level, see s tratum e xchange of 136 1 3 9 4 1 , 143,
lexical: 163, 166 171, 181 189, 191,
_ bor rowing 172 195 196, 206
^c o llo c a t io n 117 203 r e fe re ntial 63
— de ns ity 32 148, 224 re pre s e ntational 162, 175
_ r e pe tition 64, 117 social 63
lexical ite m 32, 4 3 208 me aning pote ntial 19, 2 1 26 2 8
le xicogrammar^ le xicogrammatical 3 0 , 3 4 39- 40, 4 2 ’ 5 1 ’ 55, 70,
system 2 1 3 9 4 4 57 79 7 9 90- 911 99, 105- 6, 109 ’
250 Inde x o f subje cts

me aning pote ntia l (c ontd. ) ⼀一language 199, 216- 19

111- 12 114*25, 139 14L ne ologis ms 195- 7
145 187, 205 ne twork, system ne twor k 40—43,
me aning style, see s e mantic style 113 125, 128. 134 188
me dium (s poke n/wr itte n) 33 1 10 r e lational 41
144 222 ⼀一 I s e mantic 4 1 - 2 ,7 9 ,8 0 ,8 2 - 3 , 85,
me dium (gr amma tica l func tion) 114- 20, 192
84 116 (see als o c ommunic a tio n ne t­
me tafunctions 22 y 27 4 7 50, 56, wor k)
72, 112 121 (see also e x pe r ie ne
n­ utr aliza tion 138
tial, ide ational, inte rpe rs onal, new (e le me nt) 13S, 148
logical, te xtual) nomina l gr oup 88t 129
me taphor 175—7, 202 nominalization 202
me tathe s is 172, 177 nons tandar d diale ct 102, 104- 5
me tonymy 175 161- 2, 178- 9, 185 ’ 225
m o d a ⼁丨
e le me nt 4 6 129- 30 nor m, nor mative 154- 5, 163, 169
modality 64 88 144, 223 linguis tic 154- 5, 163
mode o f discourse 33, 62- 4, 110 ’ social 169, 171
113 115- 17 123 125 143- 5, noun, see nomina l group
189, 222- 3, 225 Nuffie ld Program me in Linguis tics
modula tio n 8 0 ’ 84 117 148’ 149 a nd Englis h T e aching, see
moo d, modal 45- 6, 50, 64 81, Schools Co unc il • . .
113 116- 17, 129 144, 148 numbe r s ( = luimeraL s ystem) 199,
223 200
morphology, mor phologic al 43- 4,
161 option, s ystcmic 40- 431 46, 67,
— processes 172 113, 12S, 134
mothe r tongue 13- 14, 27, 53, 70, be haviour al 42
121 124, 171, 199- 200, 206, s e mantic 44 61, 79 9 1 109
233 111, 114 125, 133
(/child to ngue ) 1 3 - 1 4 ,2 7 ,5 3 ,7 0 orthogr aphy, or thogr a phic system
(/for e ign language ) 199- 200 2 1 , 105

name s , na ming 64, 195- 6, 200- 2 paradigmatic 4 0 4 1 , 52 128, 137

— and conce pts 200, 202- 3
narrative 70 133» 145- 7
national language 199» 204
native language ,.fe e mothe r tongue
nativis t vie w 16- 18
natural language 37- 8
_ and mathe matics 195 200 —
203
ne gative 80, 8 4 148
*Negro Nons tandar d Englis h' {see
als o Black Englis h) 85
ne ighbour hood 159
~ e n v ir o n m e n t 139
parataxis , paratactic 49, 84, 129
par ticipant (in s ituation) 3 3 ,6 1 - 2 ,
143- 4
peer gr oup 99, 123T 125 159- 60
~ la ng ua g e 9 7 126 t 217
pe lting speech 164—5
pe r for mance 38, 51, 85
pe r iodicity 136, 139
pe rs on 6 4 ’ 116- 17, 144, 149
pe rs onal func tion 19, 31, 55, 71,
221
 Inde x o f subje cts 251

pe rs onality 14- 15 r e alization 39- 44, 70, 79t 8 9 ,1 15

phonae s the s ia, phonae s the tic 138 122- 5 130, 134- 5, 138, 146,
phone tic(s ) 10, 156, 212 234 149 172- 5 186, 208
phonology, phonological (s ys te m) re curs ion, recursive s tructure s 48-
21, 3 9 131, 135 172 187, 4 9 , 130 188
208 reference 11*7 144^ 148
⼀一me taphor 175 re gion, re gional:
— processes 172 ~ d ia le c t 66
— variation 172 —language 199 2 0 4 218
polarity 9 1 117 register, diatypic varie ty/varia­
polys ystemic 4 0 79 tion 31- 5, 62, 67- 8, 1 1 0 - U ,
pragmatic func tion of language 113 1 1 4 ,1 2 3 - 5 1 4 5 ,1 5 0 ’ 157,
54^6, 71, PO, 125, 221 165 183, 185- 6, 191 195- 7,
Prague s chool 63, 177 2 2 5 229
pre dicting (the te xt) 6 2 1 1 0 ,1 4 2 ~ o f mathe matics 195- 71 202- 3
150 189, 199? 223 re gulatory function 19 5 3 55 71,
prestige for m 6 6 156 121
process (gr ammatical func tio n) re le xicalization 165
4 5 129 re por te d s pe e ch 49, 131, 149
process type 64, 117, 136 residua] ( = pr o pos itiona l) e le ­
mate r ial 64 80 84 me nt 46, 129- 30
me ntal 148 resource, Language as 17, 52, 192,
r e lational 64, 149 205
ve rbal 148 rhe me 46, 129- 30
pr omine nce 137 149 rhythm 160- 61
pr onoun, pe rs onal 89 Roge t's T hesaurus 79, 84
p r o n u n c ia t io n ,a c c e n t , phone tics role, see social role* family r ole
pr opos itional e le me nt, see re s idual s ys te m; als o gr a mmatica l func ­
e le me nt tion
protolanguage (o f child) 27 55, rules, language as 17, 191- 2
71 121’ 124, 212
ps ycholinguis tics 17, 38 48 Schools Counc il Pr ogr amme in Lin-
ps ychology, ps ychological 11, guis tics a nd Englis h T e ach­
38- 9 57 ing 100
punctuation 148 s e cond language 199- 200
"second life 1 6 7 4 ’ 177 181
que s tion 9 U 116 148 secrecy, secret Language 166, 17 2
quote d speech 148, 150 182
s e mantic:
rank 129 change 74- 7, 85, 89
—scale 133 135 — fie ld the ory 75
re ading, see literacy —load 203
re ality: —ne twor k 41- 2, 7 9 ^S5 t 114-
alte rnative 167- 71, 179 120 192
social L26, 167 —proce ss 150
s ubje ctive 168- 9t 172 181 ~ s tr uc tur e 41, 135
252 Inde x o f subjects

s e mantic (c o ntd.) — role 14- 15 6 7 71, 144

- ^t y le 76- 7, 86 98, i l l , 113,
161 163 177 195- 6
— unit 70 109, 135- 6
s e mantic system 21, 27, 39—45,
57 6 3 ’ 7 2 ’ 77 78- 81 85- 6,
8 9 - 9 1 ,9 9 ,1 0 9 ,1 1 1 - 14 123- 5,
126- 33, 140^42, 145 149 ’
173, 187- 9 195, 198, 208
s emantics:
ge ne ral 114
ge ne rative 4 9 60
s entcncc 109 129, 135 177
s etting 23, 34 65, 226
s implification 96
s ituation (see als o conte xt o f s itua­
tion) 13 18 28- 31, 32- 5’
6 1 4 109- 10 141 145 189,
228- 9
— as de te r mina nt o f text 63,
116- 17 122, 141- 50, 189,
223- 4
— type 29- 31 3 4 37, 46 65,
67- 8, 77 79, 85. 89- 90 105,
1 0 9 - 1 1 ,1 1 4 - 2 2 ,1 4 2 ,1 4 5 ,2 3 0
compone nts of 33 61- 4t 109-
110,142- 5 (see ak o fie ld, m ode,
te nor o f dis cours e )
s lang 158, 165
social:
— action 1 4 3 4 > 146, 186
— class 67, 80 87- 8, 94 98-
100 102- 3, 105, 158, 179,
184
_■cons truction o f re ality, see
social re ality
~ g r o u p 14 154 159- 61
— hierarchy 65- 6, 85 92 113,
123, 125’ 155 172 178 184
191
_ ins titution 230- 33
— le ar ning 106 126 213
— or de r 179
— pr oce s s e s ) 185- 6
— reality 99, 126 140 167- 71
191
~ s tr uc tur e 21- 6, 66- 9, 78, 86,
89 91, 101, 105 113- 14, 125,
166- 72, 184, 186, 192
— value 67, 74 106, 141, 155-
156 160- 61, 166, 191, 203
social system 36- 7, 39- 43, 51, 57,
67- 9 76 78- 9 81, 92 98,
110- 11 114- 15, 123- 6, 141’
147 162 172, 175, 183 189
_ as system o f me anings 79, 99,
109 137 139, 141, 162, 177,
189
s ocialization 2 7 , 36, 55 99, 102,
105- 6, 113, 213- 16
s ocializing agency 68, 9 0 111,
125 159
s ociolinguis tic coding or ie ntation
123, 161 166, 181
s ociolinguis tics 12 13 3 2 35 37
56’ 6 2 , 64, 68- 9, 8 7 92 97,
108 115, 122, 126
s ociology, s ociological 11, 34- 5,
39, 41- 2, 5 7 100
~ o f knowle dge 81
~ o f language 35, 65 92, 100,
192
~ s e mantics , see s ocios e mantics
s ocios e mantic(s ) 25, 34 40, 53^4,
75 7 9 4 4 106 114, 121^2
s ound ‘s ounding* 19, 2 1 122,
208, 212
s peech act 15
s peech community 6 6 ,7 4 154- 5,
1 8 3 4 216- 17
rural 154 1 8 3 ,2 1 6
urban 66 155 159 184 2 1 6 ^
217
s peech s ituation, see s ituation
s poke n language 32, 103 110t
133, 206t 224^5
s tandard (diale ct language ) 66,
85, 98, 102 104 157 161- 2,
178- 9, 185 210 2 2 5 234
s te re otype , — hypothe s is 23 104,
233 235
 Inde x of s ubje cts 253

s tratification the or y 1L2 ~ n e t w o r k 40- 43, 113 125

s tratum, stratal or g a niza tion (o f la n ­ 128 134, 188
guage ) 39, 112, 122, 128 te chnical language 32, 76, 165,
13ft, 173, 183, 1 8 7 ,2 2 0 196- 7, 202- 3 229
‘s e mologicaT s e mantic 112* te nor o f discourse 33, 62- 4, 1 10t
135 173 113, 115- 17, 123 125, 143- 5,
structure, s tructural 40—41 47, 146, 189, 222, 225
128- 9 1 3 3 4 tense 64 75 80, 147
— innovation 197 te r minology 76, 195- 6, 203
— types 48- 9, 129 188 text 40, 57- 8, 6 1 ^ , 69- 70 89,
cons titue nt 4 0 - 4 1 ,1 3 0 - 3 1 ,1 8 8 108- 9, 116, 122’ 125, 133- 51,
generic 133- 4, 136 180, 192
gr ammatical 41, 45, 56, 133, ~ g r a m m a r 69, 135
148 188, 196- 7, 207 te xtual (func tion, co mpone nt) 46,
s e mantic 4 1 135 4 8 ,5 0 ,6 3 ,70 7 2 ,1 1 2 , 116- 17
social 21- 6, 66- 9, 78 86, 89, 120’ 123, 125, 128- 33, 136,
91 101 105, 113- 14, 125, 143- 5 166, 187- 9
166- 72 184’ 186, 192 te xture 113, 133, 136, 187, 223
style: the me , the matic 46, 117, 129- 30’
—scale 66, 184, 224 133. 148
— s hift 66 ~ s tr uc t ur e 134, 150
cognitive 81 ~ s y s te m 144
s e mantic 76- 7, 86, 98, 111, ⼀一va r ia tion I4 S
113 161 163, 177, 195- 6 time system 198
s ubculture , s ubcultur al 24, 26, 98, tone {see als o into na tio n) 221
125 158, 165, 181 ~ c o n t o u r 133
~ diffe r e nce s in language 26- 7, ~ g r o u p 133
85- 6, 160- ^1 trans itivity 4 5 4 58* 64, 1 1 3 ,1 1 6 ,
s ubje ct 130, 149 129, 136 138, 143, 148
s ubject- matter (see als o fie ld o f dis ­ trans mis s ion, cultur al 27, 36 52,
cours e ) 3 3 ’ 63, 7 7 110, 8 9 , 9 9 10L, 106 114, 141
143- 4
s ubs titution 144
unde r wor ld language 166, 180
suffix, s uffixing 172» 177
s upe rs ente nce 109, 135
syllable 135- 6 value (see als o social value ) 140
— phonology 135 ~ s y s te m 162, 168
s ynonyms 138 165- 6 var iability 96
s yntagm 56 variable 85
s yntagmatic 40- 41, 137 —r ule 66 74
~ e n v ir o n m e n t 139 var iant 7 4 111, 156, 158 172- 7
syntax (see als o le x icogrammar) 181, 190
4 3 4 , 121, 208 high 156, 158, 184
system, s ystemic 4 0 47, 9 2 ’ 137, le x icogrammatical 175
192 (see als o linguis tic system, low 156 158 184
s e mantic s ys te m) me taphor ical 175
254 Inde x o f s ubje cts

variant (c ontd.) —play 160

phonoJogical 175 — re pe rtoire 65
s e mantic 175 ve rnacular, see local language
var iation 62- 3, 66- 7, 74- 6, 85, vocabular y 20, 39 102- 3 148,
96, 125 155- 6, 172- 5 179 160*61’ 165, 195- 7
181, 183, 220 ⼀一as conte nt 64, 148
— the ory 172 175, 190 voice 64» 144
free 44 vowe l br e aking 159
gr ammatical 88 173
varie ty (o f language ) 74, 110 157
(see als o diale ct, re gister) wor d (see als o le xical ite m, voc abu­
diale ctal 35, 225 lary) 20 3 2 208
diatypic 35 145 225 ⼀一phonology 135
ve rb ve rbal gr oup 129 wor ding 21, 4 0 122, 125 135,
verbal: 150 200 207, 2 1 2 220
—art 146, 166 writLng system, see or thogr aphy
~ c o n t e s t a nd dis play 140, 160, writte n language 3 2 103, 104- 5,
166 180 185 110 133 145? 148, 157, 206
Index of names

Ab d u la ziz Moha me d 77 Ervin- T ripp Sus an 81, 93- 5

Baile y, Charle s - Jame s N, 96 FarwelU Ca r ol 135

Baratz, Jo a n 23, 85, 94, 103 Fas old, Ra lp h 96
Barthe s , Ro la n d 113 Fe rgus on, Char le s 9 6 t 110 135
Bas s o, Ke ith 76 Firbas , Ja n 150
Be rge r, Pe te r 81 126 169—71 Fir th, J. R. 28 35, 39 51, 54’ 61,
177, 180 109
Be rns te in, Bas il 24—31, 36- 7, 42, Fis hman, Jos hua 6 2 ,65 6 8 9 2 98
46, 67- 8, 7 9 86- 9, 91- 2, 9 4 t Frake , Char le s 76
101- 7 113 - 14 122 123, 140 Frie drich, Paul 75
161, 166 181, 214
Be ns on Jame s 224 Gar finke l, Ha r o ld 171
Bourdie u Pie rre 168 Gilm a n , Albe r t 89
Br own, Ro g e r 89 Go ffm a n Er ving 172
Buhle r , Kar l 4 8 50 Go r m a n, T . P, 65
Gre ave s , Willia m 224
Cas tane da, Car los 182 Gre gor y, Mic hae l 33, 110, 134t
Cazde n, Cour tne y 93, 9 5 98 145, 222, 224- 5
Ce de r gr e n He nr ie tta 172 Gre imas » A , J. 70, 81
Chabr ol, C. 134 Gr ims ha w Alle n 61
Choms ky, Noa m 17 28 3 7 *8 49. Gumpe r z, Jo h n 65 11 110, 154
57 217
Cicoure l, Aa r o n 60, 67 109, ] 5 0
Co nklin, Ha r o ld 76 Ha r ma n, T homas 164- 5» 1 7 5 ,1 7 7
Co ulth a r d, Ma lc olm 80 Has an, Ruqa iy a 31 68, 86 99,
111 134, 137
Dix on, Ro b e r t M, W. 7 0 165 Ha uge n, E in a r 76
Doughty, Pe te r 21 26 2 1 1 , 2 3 1 Hawkins , Pe te r 94
234 He nde rs on* Dor othy 214
Douglas , Mar y 2 5 ,7 9 8 7 ,88 114 Herzog* Ma r vin 91
Du m o n t , Louis 86, 100 Hes s, Ro be r t 95
Hill, T re vor 110
Ellis , Je ffre y 3 3 62, 110 228 Hje lms le v, Louis 39—40, 42, 44,
Elme noufy , A fa f 133 7 0 136, 137
Enge lmanA, Sie gfr ie d 93, 96 Hoe nigs wald, He nr y 75
256 Inde x o f name s
Huddle s ton Ro dne y 129
Huds on Ric ha r d 41, 129
Hyme s , De ll 3 2 37- 8, 49- 50, 61,
63, 7 2 81, 85 9 2 141
Jakobs on, Ro m a n 166
Jo h n Ve r a 94
)o o s 7 Ma r tin 224
Ke llne r, Ha ns fr ie d 81
Ke r nan Cla udia Mitc he ll 93
Kochman, T homas 179
Km h n a m u r t h i, Bha dr ir a ju
196
Labov, Willia m 38 54, 66- 7, 70
71, 74- 5 85- 7, 91, 92, 96- 8,
155 172, 184, 216- 17
La m b Sydne y 3 9 - 4 1 ,4 4 ,5 1 ,112
136
Levi- Strauss» Claude 9 9 1 6 8 ,1 7 5
Lo flin Ma r vin 85
Luc kma nn, T homas 126 169- 71,
177 180
Lue de rs - Salmon, Er ika 98
Mac kay Da vid 100 2 0 5 n
Ma lino w s ki Br onis law 2 S 33, 45
48, 65, 68 109, 147, 192, 223
Ma llik, Bhaktipr a s ad 164, 172- 7,
179
Ma r in, L. 134
McDa vid, Ra ve n 99
McIntos h, Angus 6 1 ’ 89 159
MlHiganf Spike 177- 8
Mitche ll, T . F. 35, 180
Morr is Ro be r t 201
Na r e mor e R. C, 94
Ne ls on, Kathe r ine 90
Ncus tupn^, Jiff 78
Osser, Har r y 93^
Pe arce Jo h n 2 8 33 211
Pike , Ke nne th 39, 139
Podgor e cki, Ad a m 164 166- 8
Re ic h, Pe le r 41
Re id, T, B. W. 110
Rub in , Jo a n 65
Sacks* Harve y 52, 60, 134 】 47,
180
Samar in, Willia m 96
Sankoff, Da v id 172
Sankoff, Giilia n 172 191
76, Saussure, Fe r dinand de 40, 44, 51
Scha ub, Pame la 2 0 5 n
Sche gloff, Ema nue l 52T60- 61
Shuyt Roge r 96
Sinclair, Jo h n 80, 129, 144, 232
Spe nce r, Jo h n 33, 110 222
Ste wart, Willia m 2 5 96
Stre ve ns t Peter 61
T abe r, Charle s 134
T aylor, Or la n d o 97
T homps on, Br ian 2 0 5 n
T hor nton^ Ge offr e y 22, 211
T hurbe r, Ja me s 128n, 151
T rie r , lo s t 75
T r udgill, Pe te r 233
T urne r, Ge offr e y 41, 43, 79, 114
Ure , Je an 32 62, 110, 224
Va illa nd, R. 160
Van Dijk , T «un A. 70
Wale tzky, Jos hua 70
We ge ne r, P h ilip p 109
We inre ich* Ur ie l 91
We lls , H. G . 178
Whor f, Be nja m in Le e 25, 76
Willia ms Fre de rick 2 3 ,9 3 - 4 , 104
Wils on, Ro b e r t 77
Wolfr a m, Wa lt 66 93, 95- 6
Zum th o r , Paul 58, 70n
 ⽂文镜索引

Ge n e r a l Lin g u is t ic s 普通镛⾔言学
Ar o n o ff M , e t a l. ( e ds ) T he H andbook o f L inguistu
镛 ⾔言 学 镚 &
Be a u g r a n d e » R . D , L inguistic T heory T he Discou r$e o f Funda m ental Works
镛 ⾔言 学 理理 镙 镘基要凍著的镛■篇研究
B lo o m fie ld , L . Langticge
镛⾔言镙
Poole * S. A n I ntroduction to L inguist ics
镛⾔言学入⻔门
R a d fo r d , A . ct al. Linguis tics t Inlro<iu<ti<>- n
镛⾔言学牧程
R o b in s » R . H . G eneral L inguistics F o u n h e d it io n
普 通 镛 ⾔言学概镙
S p a ir , E L anguage A n I ntroduction to the Study o f Speech
镛 ⾔言 镙 ⾔言镛研究镗镙
Saus s ur e » F . D . Course i n G eneral L ingu ist ics
普通镛⾔言学教程
Yu le , G T he Study o f L anguage Se c ond e d it io n
袼⾔言研究

P h o n e t ic s a n d P h o n o ⼁丨
< ^ y 镛⾳音学与⾳音系学
Che n, M Y Tome Sandhi Patterns across Chinese D ialects
汉 镛 ⽅方 t 的镖镕变镋模式
C la r k > J . et a l. A n I m roductton to Phonetics an d Phonology
Se c ond e dit io n
镛⾳音学与⾳音系学入⻔门
C r u it e n d e n , A . ( e d ) Gim son's Pronunciation o f E nglish SLx ih E d it io n
吉姆森英镛镛 ⾳音教往
Gus s e n h o v e n^ C . e t al. U nderstanding Phenology
⾳音系学遴解
Ka g e r , R. O p ti m al i ty ^Theory
化镊镙
Ro a c h , P , English Phonetics an d Phonology A Practi cal Cou rse
Se c ond e dit io n
英 镛 镛 ⾳音 学 与 ⾳音 系 学 实 ⽤用 教 程

257
S y n t a x 句句法学

B a lt in « M . e t a l. (e d s ) T he H andbook o f C ontem porary Sy ntactic T heory

镈代句句法理理镙通定
Ch o m s k y * N . K ncrw ledge o f L anguage N ature , O ri gi n , artd
镛 ⾔言 知 镯 其 性 未源及伩⽤用
Cook Y. C hom sk y fs U n i u er u i l G r am m ar A n I ntr oducti on

Se c o nd e d it io n
镆姆斯基的普遍镛法教程
OuKa lIa » J . I ntroducing T ransf orm a( ionaI G ram m ar From Principles
an d Param eters to M inim alism Se c ond e d it io n
镅 镄 ⾄至 成 镛 法 镗 镙 从原則参 教到最镃⽅方案
R a d fo r d , A , Sy ntax : A I ntroduction
句句 法 学 最镃⽅方案镗镙
R a d fo r d , A . T rans/ orm ati onal G ram m ar : A F i r st Course
镅镄⽣生成 镛法教程
S m it h f N . Chomsky z I deas and f deals
镆 囀 斯 思 想 与 理理 想

S e m a t u k s 镛义学
Lappin, S. ( ed) T f u H andbook o f C ontem porary Sem antic T heory
镈代 ifr 义理理镙指南
Ly o n s , J. L inguistic Seman ti cs: A n introduction
镂义学幻镙
Sae e d> J . I . Sem antics
镛义学

Mo r p h o lo g y 形镉学

Ma t t h e w s * P . H ,
Packard J . L ,
M orphology Se c o nd e d it io n
形镉学
T he M orphology o f Chinese A L inguistu: and C ognitiv e
A pproach.
汉 镛 形 镉 学 镁 ⾔言 镀 知研究法

P r a g m a t ic s 镛⽤用学

Me y J ‘ L. P rag m ati cs: A n I ntroduction Se c ond edicion.

锿⽤用学釘镙
LeWnsori, S. C. Pragm ati cs
镛⽤用学

258
Pe cce i J. S . Pragm ati cs
镂⽤用学
Spe r be r » D . et a l. R el ew nce C om m unication and C ognition Se c o nd e d it io n
锾联姓 交盱与镀知
Ve r s c h u e r e n . J . U nderstandi ng Pragm atics
镂⽤用学新綷

Dis cour s e An a ly s is 锽镛分析

Br o w n * G . e t a l. D iscourse A naly sis
锧镛分析
G «e , J . P , A n I ntr oducti on to D i scourse A nal y si s j T heory & Sf ethod

锽■
镛 分 析 入 ⻔门 攻镙与⽅方法

P h ilo s o p h y o f L a i^ u a g c 镛⾔言哲学
A u s t in J , L . H ew to D o T hings w ith W ords Se c ond e dit io n
如何以⾔言⾏行行事
Gr ic e , H. P . Studies i n the W ay o f W ords
⾔言锦⽤用法研究
J.R. Speech A cts t A n Essay i n the Philosophy o f L anguage
⾔言 镛 ⾏行行 锥 镛⾔言哲学镙
S e a r le J. R. Ex pression an d \f ean i n g Studies i n the T heory o f Speech
A cts
表 述 和 意 义 ⾔言锿⾏行行锥斫究

La n g u a g e Or ig in 镛⾔言起 源
A it c h is o n r J . T he Seeds o f Speech t L anguage O ri g i n an d Ev olution
⾔言 镛 的 明 发 镛 ⾔言 起 源 与 锤 化

H is t o r y of Lin g u is t ic s 镛⾔言学史
R o b in s R, H . A Short H istory o f L inguistics F o u r t h e d ilio ii
镛 ⾔言 学 « t

L€x .icogr a phy 锣典学

B e jo in t f H . M odern L & ricography A n I ntroduction

锢 代 詞 典学教锡
C o w ie , A , P , E nglish D ictionaries f o r Foreign L earners A H isiory
英 镛 学 锠镘典史

259
 Hartm ann R. R . K
S t y lis t ic s ⽂文体学
Le e c h , G. N .
Le e c h , G . N . e r a l.
丁ho r n b o r r o w J . e t aL
W r i g h t » L . e t al.
T y p o lo g y 镛⾔言 类型学
C r o ft , W .
An t h r o p o io g ic a ! Lin g u is t ic s ⼈人类镛⾔言学
F o le y , W .
S o c io lin g uis tic s 社会 镛⾔言学
C o u lm a s t F . ( e d )
C r y s t a l, D .
Faso- ld, R ,
Huds on, R. A,
Wa r dha ug h, R.
P s y c h o ling uis tic s ⼼心理理镛⾔言学
A it c h is o n , J ,
2 60
. et a l. D ictionary o f L ex icography
詞典学镲典
A L inguistic G uide to E nglish Poetry
英 锟 学 锠 指 南 锿⾔言学的 分析⽅方法
Sty le iv Fiction : A L inguistic i ntrodttctton to E nglish
F ictional Prose
⼩小 汍 ⽂文 体 镙 英镛⼩小镞的镛⾔言学入⻔门
Patterns i n L anguage Sty listics f o r Students o f L anguage
an d L i terature
镛 ⾔言 模 瓦 ⽂文依学入⻔门
Sty listics : A Practi cal Ccursebtxtk
实⽤用⽂文体学教程
T ypology and U niv ersals
镛 ⾔言 类 型 学 与 普 遍 镛 法 特 征
A nth topological L inguistics A n I ntroduction
⼈人类锿⾔言学入⻔门
T he H andbook o j Socioi i nguisties
社 会 镛 ⾔言学通锞
E nglish as a G lobal L anguage
英镛 全球通⽤用镛
T he Sodo11uguistics o f L anguage
社会镛⾔言学
Soc ioi i nguistics S e c o nd e d it io n
社 会 镛 ⾔言 学 教 程
I nt roduction to Sociolinguistics T h ir d - edition
社 会 镛 ⾔言 学 引 镙
T he A rticulate M am m al An Introduction to Psycholinguiscics
Fourth edition
会 镞 锽 的 哺 乳 动 物 ⼼心 理理 镛 ⾔言 学 入 n
Carr oLK D . W . Psychology o f L angtuige T h ir d e d it io n
法⾔言⼼心理理学

In t e r c u lt ur al C o m m u n ic a t io n 跨 ⽂文 化交际
S a m o v a r , L . A . e t a l. C om m unication Betxi^een C ul tures Se c o a d e dit io n
跨 ⽂文 化 交 际
Scol)on» F . e t al. I n tercu l tu ro l Com m unication A D iscourse A nalysis
垮 ⽂文 化 交 盱 锜篇分析法

T r a n s la t o lo g y 锝锜学
Ba ke r ’ M . I n O iher W ords: A Coursebook on T m nsiation
換 ⾔言 之 鉬锜教程
Be ll, R , T , T ran sl ati o n an d T ran sl ati n g T heory an d Practice
锜 ⽂文 与 翻 锜 锢镙与实铦

Co g n it iv e Lin jg u is t ic s 镀知 镛⾔言学

T a y lo r , J . R . L inguist ic C ategorization Prototy pes tn L inguistic T heory

Se c o nd e d it io n
镛 ⾔言 的 范 畤 化 镛⽞玄学铥 镙 尹 的 类 典 型
Ur ig e r e r , F . et a l‘ A n Jntroducttun to Cognitizje L inguistics
镀知镛⾔言学入⻔门

F u n c t io n a l Lin g u is t ic s 功能镛⾔言学
B lc o r 丁. e t al. T he Functiorm l A nalysis of E nglish A H all i day an
A pproach
镛 的 功 能 分 析 铚礼德禊式
H a llid a y , M . A . K , A n I ntroducti on to F uncti onal G ram m ar Se c o nd e d it io n
功能锿法夸镙
H a llid a y , M . A . K . L anguage as Social Sem iotic t T he Social I n terp retati o n o f
L anguage an d M eaning
作 锥 社 会 符 号 的 镛 ⽞玄 从 社 会 铙 度 锧 铘 镛 ⾔言 与 意 义
Halliday, M .A .K . et al. Cohesion in E nglish
镛的铗接
T hom ps on, G, I ntroducing F uncti onal G r<tm m ar
功能锿法入⻔门

Historical Linguistics 铖 史 镛 ⾔言 学

Le hm a nn« W . P , biistoricdl L inguistics : A n introducti on T h ir d e d it io n

铖 史 镛 ⾔言 学 镗 镙

261
T rask , R L . H istori cal L inguistics
铖史镛⾔言学

Co r p us L in g u is t ic s 镛 料镜 镛⾔言 学
Bibe r » D . e t a l. C orpus L inguistics
镛料镜镛⾔言学
Ke nne dy » G . A n I nf roquet ion to Corpus L inguistics
镛料庠镛⾔言学入⻔门

S ta tis t ic s in L in g u is t ic s 镛⾔言统铕学
W o o d s » A . e t a l. Statisti cs i n L anguage Studies
镛⾔言研铔中的 铓铕学

His t o r y of t h e
Baugh, A. C. et al.
F ?e e bor n D.
La n g u a g e 英镛史
A History of the E nglish L anguage Fourth edition
英镛史
From O l d E nglish to S tan d ard E nglish Se c o nd e d it io n
英铒从古代英镛到铑准英镛

F ir s t La n g u a g e Ac q u is it io n 第⼀一镛⾔言锠得
F o s t e r *Co h e n » S. H . An Introduction to Child L anguage Develcpmeni
⼉儿童镛⾔言发展釘镙
G o o d lu c k » H . L anguage A cquisition : A L inguistic I ntroduction
从 铐 ⾔言 学 的 ⾓角 度 看 法 ⾔言 铏 得
P e c c e i J .S . C hi ld L augtuige N e w e ditio n
⼉儿童镛⾔言

Se c ond La n g u a g e Ac q uts ttio n 第⼆二镛⾔言锠得

C o lie n » A . D . Strategies in L earning an d U sing a Second L anguage
学 锠 和 运 ⽤用 笫 ⼆二 镛 ⾔言 的 策 略略
Cook» V . L inguisitcs an d Second L anguage A cquisition
镛⽞玄学和 第 ⼆二 铎 ⾔言 锠 得
Cook V. Second L anguage L earni ng an d L anguage T eaching
Se c ond e d it io n
第⼆二镛⾔言学锠与教学
Ja m e s , C . Erros in L angttage L earni ng and Use Exploring Error
A naly sis
镛 ⾔言 学 锠 和 锿 ⾔言 使 ⽤用 中 的 铍 铌 铋铌分析探铊

262
Lars e n- F r e «m ^n , D . e t a J.
Nu n a n * D.
Re id, J.M .
Ric h a r d s * J . C- et al.
A n I ntroduction to Second L anguage A cquisition Research
第 ⼆二 镛 ⾔言 锠 得 研 究 蜓 艽
Second L M nguage T eaching an d L earning
第⼆二镛⾔言教与学
L earni ng Styles in ihe K S L / E F L Clussroom
E S L/ E F L 英 镛 铉 堂 上 的 学 镱⻛风格
R ef lectiv e T eaching i n Second L a nguage Classrooms
系⼆二镛⾔言 铉 堂 教 学 反 思

Language Education 镛⾔言教育

Brown, H .D. Principles o f L anguage L earni ng an d T eaching T h ir d

e d it io n
镛 ⾔言 学 锠 与 教 学 庳 锢
Brown, H .D. T eaching by Principles An I n u racti v e A pproach io
L anguage Pedagogy
根 振 原 理理 教 学 ⽂文 互 ⼤大 锿 t 教学
Brown, J . D. 丁 he Elem ents o f L anguage C urri cul urn : A System atic
A pproach to Program Oeveiop^n^nt
镛 ⾔言 教 学 ⼤大 铈 要 素 铇猓钘铕豕统法
Harme r, J . M ow to Teach English
怎样教英镛
H a t c h » E . et al. 'V ocabulary > Sem antics an d L anguage E ducation
埒 钗 锟义学和镛⾔言教育
Johnson, K. An I ntroduction to Foreign L anguage L earni ng atu i
T eaching
外镛学锠与牧学镗镙
Ric h a r d s » J . et a l. A pproaches an d M ethods i n L anguage T eaching
镛 ⾔言教 学的洗 派
T r u d g ill* P . e( al. Inte rnational Englis h Third edition
英镛 国琢遢⽤用镛
Ur , P. A Course in l ^an g u a^t T eaching Practice and T heory
镛 ⾔言 教 学 教 程 实铦与攻镙

Re s e a r c h Me t h o d 研究⽅方法
M c D o n o u g h , J . e l al,
S la d e ’ C .
Research M ethods f o r E nglish L anguage T eachers
镛教学科岈⽅方法
Form an d Sty l et Research Papers , R ^f w rts t Theses
Tenth edition
如 何 钖 砑 究 钕 ⽂文 与 学 钔 钓 告

263
T h o m a s , J . e t a l. (e d s ) U sing C orpora f o r L anguage Resea rch
⽤用镛料镜研究镛⾔言
W r a y , A . e t a l. Projects i n L i n g u i sti cs: A P racti cal G uide to Researching
L anguage
镛 ⾔言 学 趄 镛⾔言研究实⽤用指南

T e s ting 钒 钑 学

Alderson, J . C ‘ et al. L anguage Test C onstruction en d E v aluation

镛⾔言 钑; 的设铕与鋊估
Bachman» L. F. et al, I nterf aces Second L anguage A cquisition an d
L anguage T esting Research
第 ⼆二 镛 ⽞玄 锠 得 与 镛 ⾔言 钒 斌 研 究 的 接 O

D a v i e st A . e t aL D i cti onary o f L an g u a^ T esting

镛⾔言钒武蚵典
H e n n in g , G . A Guide to Language T esting: Development Exxiluatton
an d Research
鋉 ⾔言 鋈指南 发展 鋊估与研究
H e a t o n , J . B. W riti ng E nglish L angttage T ests N e w e d it io n
奚镛钒钑
W o o d , R. A ssessmen t an d T esting i A Surv ey o f Research
铐 估 与 铈 钑 矸究琮述

Academic Wr iting 学 钔 钖 作

R o b e r t s , W . H . e t a l. A bout L anguage r A R eader f o r W riters F if t h e d it io n

鋈 镛 ⾔言 钖作镕本

Cour s e D e s ig n 铉 程 设 铕
Ya Jd e n , J . Principles o f Course D esign f o r L anguage T eaching
锿 ⾔言教 学 保 程 设 铕 庳 理理

Englis h Grammar 英 镛 镛 法

B ib e r ’ D- e t a l . L ongm nn G ram m ar o f Spoken an d W ritten English

劫 ⽂文 镛⼝口镛和笔镛 镛法
Ho p p e r * P . J . e t a l. G ra m m at i cal i zat ion
⾦金金法化学镞

Dic t io n a r y 锦典

Bu s s m a r m H. R out ledge D ictionary o f L anguage an d L inguistics

锿⾔言与锿 ⾔言学句句典

264
Crystal , ID. The Ca^nbrtdg4 Encyclopedia o f L anguage Second edition
桥镛⾔言 百杵锣典
Johnson, K . et al . Encyclopedic D ictionary of A pplied L i n g u i sti cs: A
H andbook f or L anguage T eaching
量量 ⽤用 镛 ⾔言 学 瓦 科 锦 典 镛⾔言教学⼿手镰
Ri chards, J . C. ex al. L ongm an D ictionary o f L anguage T eaching & A pplied
L inguisiics
f t ⽂文 镛 ⾔言 教 学 及 量量 ⽤用 镛 ⾔言 学 锦 典 英 英 *英 汉 双 解

265