1

Assignment 1 - Language Variation in Your Speech Community

Fransisca Alexander – Holder: 320007305

University of the West Indies Open Campus: St.Vincent and the Grenadines

LING6307 Introductory Sociology of Language for Graduate Students

Mrs. Emmogene Budhai – Alvaranga

April 11th, 2023

 2

Section 1: Speech Community

Critical Evaluation of the Definition of a Speech Community

The term Speech Community has provoked numerous discussions and consequently, a

myriad of definitions among sociolinguists. Derived from the translation of the German

Sprachgemeinschaft, the term was first used by Leonard Bloomfield (Madera, 1996) and referred

to “a group of people who use the same set of speech signals . . .” (Bloomfield, 1933, as cited in

Morgan, 2005, p.7). As time progressed, other linguists began to wrestle with this concept and as

a result, several other theories have emerged. Hence, the aim of this paper is to critically evaluate

the definition of a speech community as proposed by Labov (1972) and Grumperz (1968); state

its most important characteristics; establish my own speech community and distinguish between

regional and social variation by citing examples from outside the Caribbean region and within

my own speech community.

William Labov’s (1792) definition of speech community introduced the concept of

shared norms, emphasizing sociological categories rather than share language variation. This

shift in focus toward norms was quite evident when he wrote

The speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language

elements but by participation in a set of shared norms. These norms may be observed in

overt types of evaluative behavior, and by the uniformity of abstract patterns of variation

which are invariant in respect to particular levels of usage (Patrick, 2002, p. 586).

In evaluating Labov’s definition, I embrace his appeal to ‘shared norms’. According to

Patrick (2002), Labov was the first to pair shared norms with linguistic uniformity. To this end, I

agree with Wardhaugh (2006) that this appeal moves the focus away from linguistic
 3

commonalities toward characteristics that people can associate with and hence, claim to belong

to the same community. In essence, uniformity exists among members of a community regarding

their attitude toward a linguistic variable despite the varied use of the variable by each member.

Another focal point of the definition was the relationship that exists between sociological

categories and variations in language use. In addressing shared norms, Labov sort to account for

differences in linguistic variables as a result of differentiation in speech styles and social class.

All of us do not necessarily have to speak the exact same way, variations must and will exist.

However, we are still a part of the same speech community, held together by shared norms.

Nevertheless, one of the major weaknesses in Labov’s definition is the view that a

member of a speech community and a participant in a speech community are one and the same.

This is due to the concept of shared linguistic norms. I strongly disagree with this notion. The

ability to speak a language and or to understand it does not qualify an individual to be a member

of that language’s speech community. For example, I possess linguistic competence in Spanish

and share mutual intelligibility with Spanish speakers. Is it safe to conclude that I am a part of

the Spanish community? No! Language competence and performance are insufficient for

membership in a speech community. In reality, people do not identify themselves with a group

solely on linguistic features. Habits, customs, history and background must play a pivotal role in

community membership.

Moreover, the definition fails to capture the dynamic aspect of language. For Labov,

membership in a speech community is contingent on one’s reaction to a linguistic variable.

Therefore, Labov sees an individual as either a part of X community or Y community. The

definition does not consider or imply that a single individual can be a member of both X and Y

communities simultaneously.
 4

John Gumperz’s work redeveloped his definition of a speech community in 1968. He

defined the term as

Any human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a

shared body of verbal signals and set off by similar aggregates by significant differences

in language usage (Patrick, 2002, p.580).

From his definition, Gumperz makes a stance on linguistic forms that are shared by all

members of the speech community which also corresponds to shared acceptance of social norms.

This “shared body” emphasizes the need for common linguistic knowledge among members of

the speech community. His use of “verbal signs” points to the communicative aspect that exists

among the members of the community. He also adds that variations in speech create a single

system because members are connected by social norms. Here, Gumperz does not make

reference to one language; no homogeneity. Instead, he incorporates heterogeneity in his

definition.

My Speech Community

From the evaluation that ensued, both sociolinguists share the notion of shared societal

norms and linguistic knowledge in their definitions. Consequently, and in my opinion, the most

important characteristics in a speech community are shared common attitudes toward linguistic

norms and shared norms of social practice (as proposed by Labov and Gumperz). From my

perspective, a definition of a speech community is quite fluid. It is not language specific. It

inculcates shared norms of understanding of a language as well as norms of social practice. This

also captures the existence of variations in the use of the language, however, the central pillar is
 5

that common negotiated accepted norms among speakers in the community as they actively use

the language. Therefore, a speech community is a group of speakers that are characterized by

shared linguistic boundaries demonstrated by members’ shared norms of understanding and

usage of the language through the bonds of shared norms of social practice.

In light of the above definition, I deem my speech community as one where I share

values, attitudes, and beliefs about my language and thus, my identity as a Vincentian. Within

this community, although I interact with different groups: friends, colleagues, congregants,

students etc, we have a common understanding of the language with which we converse.

Additionally, norms concerning the appropriateness of the use of language are known and are all

agreed upon by each member. A further consideration of my speech community revealed that

although I possess mutual intelligibility with speakers of other English-speaking Caribbean

islands, I do not share their history, culture, and rituals. As such, I cannot be deemed as

belonging to the speech community of the Caribbean English–speaking islands. Labov (1972)

opines that sociological categories are also at work in a speech community and thus may cause

variations in language use. I can certainly attest to this fact. Although I speak a distinct variant of

Vincentian Creole, as a middle-aged female and residing in the middle class, I share common

linguistic norms regarding the usage of the Vincentian dialect with other Vincentians. Therefore,

I conclude that my speech community is the entire island of St.Vincent and the Grenadines.
 6

Section 2: Language Variation

Regional and Social Variation: America, Germany, Qatar and China

Language speakers in a particular country may not speak the language the same way

although they live in the same country. They may use different grammar, syntax and vocabulary

based on the area in which they reside (Azerbaijan, 2015). This variation in language is called

regional variation and refers to a set of varieties of a language spoken in different geographical

areas (Rickford, 1996a). To explain the concept of regional variation, two case studies done on

American dialects and the German language will be examined by Azerbaijan (2015) and

Stollhans (2020) respectively.

In the United States of America, several varieties of the English Language exist. In his

case study on ‘American Variety of English Language’, Azerbaijan (2015) highlights two

differences in the area of phonology. Firstly, in the areas of Eastern New England, Western

Pennsylvania, and the General American dialect, there is a difference in the pronunciation of the

letter “a” among the dialects. In Eastern New England, in some words, “a” is [a:]. For example,

fast [fa:st] and grass [gra:s]. On the other hand, in Western Pennsylvania and the General

American dialects, [æ] is used instead of [a] as seen in fast [fæst] and grass [græs]. In his second

example, the letter [r] is absent in words such as hard [ha:d] and far [fa:] in the Southern Upland

dialect. In the Western Pennsylvania dialect, the [r] sound is pronounced in all words, for

example, car [ka:r] (Kurt, 1928, as cited in Azerbaijan, 2015).

A case study of the German language by Stollhans (2020) also shows regional variation.

The German language has three defined standard varieties: Swiss Standard German, Austrian

Standard German, and German Standard German. Among these variations, differences in
 7

morphology and syntax are quite evident. In the area of syntax, the choice of auxiliary verbs

varies. For example, in the Swiss and Austrian varieties, the verb (to be) ‘sein’ is used while in

the German standard variety, the verb (to have) ‘habe’ is used. Therefore, the clause – I have

stood – in German perfect tense, reads thus:

Swiss and Austrian Standard German – Ich bin gestanden

German Standard German – Ich habe gestanden

Language variation is not only deemed as geographical in nature but it can also be

classified among the social factors of society. Rickford (1996a) posits that social variation is

defined as the differences between speakers in the areas of age, social class, race/ethnicity, and

gender. Simply put, variation exists between individuals belonging to different societal groups.

This aspect of variation will be examined through the use of Amadidhi’s (1985) (as cited in

Amadidhi, 1991) case study on Qatari Arabic. In this study, the variable [ʤ] voiced alveolar

affricate was examined and proven to have three variants, namely: [ʤ] voiced alveolar affricate,

[ʒ] voiced palatal fricative, and [j] voiced palatal glide. Among the three socioeconomic groups,

all groups use the [ʒ] variant. However, those in the high socioeconomic group use the [j] variant

while the Bedouin – the socially stigmatized - uses the [ʤ] variant. This showed variation among

social classes.

A second example of social variation is seen in Scotton and Wanjin’s (1984) (as cited in

Amadidhi, 1991) investigation of the word shi:fu in Chinese. These researchers found that there

was a difference in the meaning of the word which was directly associated with a particular

group of speakers in Beijing. According to Amadidhi (1991), the word meant elder, master

craftsman, comrade, or could be used as a neutral term to address someone. The older used
 8

‘elder’ or ‘craftsman’ while the younger people used it as ‘comrade’. Its semantic meaning

changes based on the age of the speakers.

Regional and Social Variation in St.Vincent and the Grenadines

Having established my speech community as the island of St.Vincent and the Grenadines,

several variations of the dialect exist throughout the island (See Appendix A). For regional

variation, the elements of phonology, lexicon, morphology, and syntax will be examined while

social class and age will be examined in social variation.

In phonology, there is a difference in the pronunciation of the word ‘cemetery’.

Leeward speakers – give the “e” a short sound – [sɛmɪtri]

Winward speakers – give the “e” a long sound – [simɪtri]

(See Appendix B)

Additionally, in the Grenadines, speakers in Union Island drop the letter “h” at the beginning of

words. For example:

Drop h - /house/ /ouse/

(See Appendix C)

Lexical variations are also present in the names of fruit/food and some objects. For

example:

leeward and central speakers - golden apple

windward speakers - plum

Grenadines speakers - pommecythere

Adverbs are totally omitted in Vincentian Creole. To modify adjectives, two things can

occur:
 9

i. The adjective is repeated twice. This is an example of morphological reduplication.

ii. The expression “an til” is placed after the adjective. This is an example of a morpho-

syntactical structure.

For example, someone who is very sleepy, may say

Windward speakers - me feel sleepy sleepy

Leeward speakers - me feel sleepy an til

In exploring social variation within the Vincentian Creole, an examination of social class

will reveal several differences in the areas of phonology and syntactical structure. The table

below shows the differences.

Social class Phonological Difference Syntactical Structure

Pronunciation on numeral 3 Interrogative sentence – Where are

you going?

Upper class Three [θri:] Where are you going?

Where are you off to?

Middle Class Chree [ʧri:] Where yo going?

Lower class Chee [ʧi:] Way yo gwine?

In phonology, upper-class speakers can be heard with a clear distinct pronunciation of the soft

“th” [θ]. The middle and lower class replaced the “th” with “ch”. However, the former retained

the remaining sounds while the latter removed the “r” sound altogether. (See Appendix D)

The syntactical structure showed that the upper class used the standard variety. The middle class

omitted the auxiliary verb and used “yo” to replace the pronoun “you”. On the other hand, the

lower class not only omitted the auxiliary verb but both the adverb (where) and the main verb

(going) were replaced by different words – way and gwine respectively.

 10

Finally, old people refer to the jersey as “gangy” or “drowsy”, middle age as “jersey” and

young people as “t-shirt”. The difference in the lexicon is clearly seen among the speakers based

on their age.
 11

References

Amadidhi, D. A. (1991). Speech community: A critique of Labov’s definition (pp. 21–38).

https://qspace.qu.edu.qa/bitstream/handle/10576/8072/Speech%20community-a

%20critique%20of%20labov%27s%20definition.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y

Azerbaijan, B. (2015). American variety of English language. International Journal of English

Linguistics, 5(5), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n5p159

Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The speech community. In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (pp. 381–

386). Macmillan.

Madera, M. (1996). Speech community. In H. Goebl, P. Nelde, Z. Starý & W. Wölck (Ed.), 1.

Halbband: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (pp. 169-175).

Berlin • New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110132649.1.4.169

Morgan, M. (2005). Speech community (A. Duranti, Ed.; pp. 1–22).

http://www.linguisticsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Speech-

Community.compressed.pdf

Patrick, P. L. (2002). The speech community. In The handbook of language variation and change

(pp. 572–593). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Stollhans, S. (2020). Linguistic variation in language learning classrooms: considering the role

of regional variation and “non-standard” varieties

meits.org/policy-papers/paper/linguistic-variation-in-language-learning-classrooms-

considering-the- role-of-regional-variation-and-non-standard-varieties Policy Papers

Linguistic variation in language learning classrooms: considering the role of regional

variation and “non-standard” varieties.

https://www.meits.org/files/policy_papers/uploads/Stollhans-2020-Linguistic-variation-
 12

in-language-learning-classrooms-considering-the-role-of-regional-variation-and-non-

standard-varieties.pdf

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Ed. 5. Ontario, Canada: Wiley-Blackwell

 13

Appendix A
The picture below shows an image of St.Vincent and the Grenadines. Located between St. Lucia

and Grenada, the island consists of the mainland, St.Vincent, and a small chain of islands called

the Grenadines. For the purpose of this study, St.Vincent is divided into three areas: Windward

(rural), Central (capital and its suburbs), and Leeward (rural) while the Grenadine islands are

viewed as one area. Of the four divisions, Central use more of the variety that coincides with the

Standard form of the English Language. The different colors are indicative of regional variation

in Vincentian Creole.
 14

Appendix B

differences in the pronunciation of the word cemetery. The

Central and Grenadine speakers give the correct pronunciation.

Appendix C

dropping the initial ‘h’ sound in the words – holiday, house, happy

Appendix D
All three speakers are female and reside in the same area. However, each represents a different
social class base on her socio-economic status.