Chapter#2: Introduction to Varieties of Language:

2.1 Global and Specific Statements:

The distinction is made between "global" linguistic categories (e.g., 'language X' or
'dialect Y') and individual linguistic items. It emphasizes that some aspects of language-
society relations can be described using global categories, while others require
consideration of unique linguistic items and individual speakers.

3. Complex Questions:
The complexity of language and society questions is emphasized. It raises important
inquiries, including:
- How should we define and limit global linguistic categories?
- Do these categories exist objectively?
- Can we differentiate various types of global categories?
- How are global categories interconnected?
- What defines a linguistic community, and do they objectively exist?

4. Challenging Common Beliefs:

The complexity of these questions challenges commonly held answers and suggests
that understanding the relationship between language and society is more intricate than
commonly assumed.
5. Implications:
This indicates that comprehending language in society isn't as simple as it may appear,
and conventional beliefs about language can be called into question. It's also noted that
certain questions, such as "Where is authentic Cockney spoken?" or "Is Jamaican
Creole a form of English or not?" may not be suitable for scientific investigation.

2.2 Linguistics item

In sociolinguistics, "linguistic item" refers to parts of language, including words (lexical
items), sounds, and language structures. Lexical items are words with meanings and
characteristics like pronunciation and word class. Sounds and constructions are
language patterns, such as sound patterns (e.g., word-final /r/) and sentence structures
(e.g., "bare relative clauses").
Non-social linguists often handle these items differently in their theories. Lexical items
are typically listed in lexicons, while sounds and constructions follow general rules.
Sociolinguists, however, study all three types of linguistic items and find that they can
vary socially. This presents theoretical challenges because if they are treated differently
in grammar, why should they behave similarly socially? Sociolinguistics also explores
how different linguistic items can have unique social distributions among speakers and
situations, although proving a truly unique distribution can be difficult.
In summary, sociolinguistics examines how various linguistic items, including words,
sounds, and constructions, can exhibit social variation, even though they are treated
differently in linguistic theory. This challenges non-social linguistic theories.

2.3 Varieties of language

In linguistics, "variety of language" refers to the various ways language is used globally,
much like how we categorize different music genres. It emphasizes the social distribution of
language varieties and challenges conventional distinctions between languages and dialects.

1. Defining Language Varieties:

- Language varieties are groups of words and ways of speaking that are used in
similar social situations. These can include languages, dialects, registers or styles of
speaking.

2. Flexibility of the Term "Variety":

- Language varieties can be big, covering many words and languages, or small,
focusing on just a few. The important thing is who uses them and when.

3. Departure from Traditional Notions:

- The old way of telling languages apart from dialects doesn't always match this view.
The idea that words naturally belong together is also challenged.
The study of language varieties looks at how people use language in different
situations, allowing for more flexible ideas about what counts as a language, dialect, or
style of speaking. The old categories might not fit well, so it's important to be open to
new perspectives on language diversity.

2.4 Speech Communities

- Sociolinguists use the term "speech community" to describe groups of people who
share a language. Different scholars have provided various definitions, leading to
diverse viewpoints.

Definitions:

1. John Lyons' Simple Definition (1970):

A speech community includes all people who use a particular language or dialect.
2. Charles Hockett's Complex Definition (1958):
A speech community consists of all people who communicate with each other, directly
or indirectly, using a common language.

3. Leonard Bloomfield's Emphasis on Communication (1933):

A speech community is a group of people who interact through speech.

4. Gumperz's Focus on Language Use (Later):

A speech community is a human group characterized by regular interaction using a
shared set of verbal signs, differentiating from similar groups through significant
language use variations.

5. William Labov's Emphasis on Shared Norms (1972a):

A speech community is defined by shared norms rather than strict language agreement.
These norms can be seen in evaluative behavior and abstract patterns of variation.

6. Robert Le Page's Individualized Approach:

Emphasizes individual perceptions of social and speech groups based on factors like
age, geography, and race. This view suggests multiple overlapping speech communities
exist, challenging the notion of a single, objective speech community.

Summary:
The text suggests that Le Page's approach (6) offers a comprehensive viewpoint,
encompassing all other definitions of speech communities. However, this unity poses a
significant challenge. While it reconciles conflicting definitions, it makes it more
challenging for sociolinguists to make generalizations about language and speech.

Historically, sociolinguists sought a single reference community for generalizations,

such as Labov's concept of New York City as a reference community. Nevertheless, the
text argues that the subjective nature of speech communities, which can vary based on
individual perception, challenges this approach. It also questions the practicality and
utility of the term "speech community" in sociolinguistic research, providing valid
reasons for rejecting this assumption.

(1) Mismatch between subjective and objective reality

- The text talks about how what people personally believe about speech communities
might not match the actual truth. According to definition (6), speech communities only
exist in people's minds, so it's a personal thing. People often have fuzzy ideas about
faraway speech communities, and these ideas may not be very accurate. This makes
sociolinguistic research more complicated.

(2) Evidence for network

- In sociolinguistics, there is evidence that shows how social networks influence the
way people use language. These social networks aren't neatly separated; instead, they
consist of central groups and people who are loosely connected, creating complex and
interconnected patterns.

(3) Evidence against community grammar

Peter Trudgill questions the idea that everyone in a community speaks the same way.
He highlights that even in the same city, people may not know all the details of how
others speak. His research in Norwich proves this, and similar differences in language
use can be found within families, especially when comparing different generations.

(4) Small size of the most important communities

{Small and Influential Communities}
- The idea of a 'speech community' faces some challenges. First, the notion that
everyone in a community speaks the same way is questioned. Peter Trudgill argues that
even people in the same city may not know all the details of how others speak,
especially across generations or within families.
- Second, the most powerful sources of language influence often come from small,
personal networks like family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, or local groups, rather
than large, defined 'speech communities.' This raises the question of whether real
'speech communities' truly exist, or if our personal views of social groups, like
'Londoners' or 'Americans,' are more important. The debate focuses on whether
language is primarily shaped by the community or by individual minds. While some
linguists argue for an individual-centered perspective, William Labov stresses the
significance of the speech community in understanding how people use language. This
disagreement has a big impact on the field of sociolinguistics.

3 . Language

3.1 Language and dialect

WHAT IS DIALECT
A dialect is the language used by the people of a specific area, class, district, or any
other group of people. The term dialect involves the spelling, sounds, grammar and
pronunciation used by a particular group of people .for example American English,
British English, Irish English, and Philippine English, Etc.

The difference between 'language' and 'dialect' can be complex and influenced by
culture in sociolinguistics. Two main criteria are typically used to distinguish them, which
can lead to confusion.

Firstly, 'language' is often seen as larger than 'dialect.' A 'language' includes a wider
range of linguistic elements and can have multiple 'dialects' within it. For example,
English as a 'language' encompasses all its dialects, like Standard English, Yorkshire
English, and Indian English. This 'size' definition of 'language' refers to the total sum of
linguistic elements across its dialects.

Secondly, the 'language' vs. 'dialect' distinction is linked to prestige. A 'language' usually
has higher prestige compared to a 'dialect.' Standard English, used in formal writing, is
often categorized as a 'language,' while regional or non-standard varieties are labeled
as 'dialects.' Whether a variety is called a 'language' or a 'dialect' often depends on its
perceived prestige, especially in formal written contexts.

This prestige-based distinction is clear to most people and reflects the influence of
writing in British culture. Varieties without a written tradition are often seen as 'dialects,'
regardless of their linguistic complexity or relationship to a 'language.'
The cultural significance of this distinction lies in how it mirrors societal values and
views on linguistic prestige. It shows how writing plays a vital role in determining
whether a variety is considered a 'language' or a 'dialect.' Sociolinguists must
understand this cultural aspect when studying language variation and identity.

3.2 Standard language

In essence, standard language is a specific form of communication used by
governments, media, schools, and in international interactions. It's linked to the idea of a
"correct" way of speaking or writing and is shaped by deliberate societal actions known
as "standardization." This standardization process typically goes through several
important steps:

1. Selection:
A specific way of speaking or writing is picked, and it's often seen as prestigious and
important for social and political reasons.
2. Codification:
Language experts create rules in dictionaries and grammar books to make this chosen
way of speaking or writing official. People are expected to follow these rules, especially
in writing.

3. Expanding Use:
This chosen way of communicating is used more widely, including in government, law,
education, science, and literature. It may get new words for technical stuff and specific
ways of doing things.

4. Acceptance:
People in the community or nation start using this standardized way of communication,
and it becomes a symbol of unity and independence. It's important to note that not
everyone agrees that the standardized way is the only "correct" way.

Standard languages are a unique and somewhat extreme example in the world of
linguistics. To truly grasp language in its more "natural" form, it's essential to study
varieties that exist independently from both standard languages and dialects tied to a
standard. These varieties often show their own distinctive characteristics, which can be
influenced by the standard language.

Interestingly, the field of academic linguistics often arises in societies where standard
languages are prevalent, and linguists frequently concentrate on their own standard
language for study.