Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific

Research-
University of Baghdad-College of Education-Ibn-
Rushd for Social Sciences- English Department

Speech Community
Sociolinguistics
Submitted by: Mustafa Taha Odeh
Supervised by: Asst. Prof. Baida’a Abbas Al-Zubaidi

2024 1445
Abstract
The study of language use within or between speaker groups is known as
sociolinguistics. Although it can be challenging to define, we must try to be
taken in. There is essentially no upper limit to group membership; but, for our
purposes, a group must consist of at least two individuals. Individuals can
form groups for one or more additional factors, such as those related to
society, religion, politics, culture, family, employment, hobbies, and so forth
Both an individual and a social entity possess language. Therefore, we would
anticipate that some people would behave linguistically similarly to other
people: they may be considered to speak the same language, dialect, or
variety, which would mean they would use the same code. They would belong
to the same speech community in that regard. This idea has been interpreted
differently by sociolinguists. We have the conundrum of wishing to research
speaking groups but not having a precise idea of what constitutes a group. We
will find that defining speech community is challenging for many of the same
reasons that it is challenging to describe concepts like language, dialect, and
variety.
Nevertheless, despite some "fuzziness" regarding its precise properties, this
idea has shown to be quite useful in sociolinguistic research. We need to keep
trying to define both languages and groups if we think there is a relationship
between them that is worth investigating. This study examines two alternative
approaches to grouping speakers in sociolinguistics: communities of practice
and social networks, together with several definitions of speech communities.
In conclusion, these concepts raise questions regarding how social groupings
could be identified using a framework for researching social identities to
serve as a link between personal preferences and social classifications.
Whatever form they take, speech communities are part of the "real" world. As
a result, we need to look for an alternative perspective on the speech
community—one that is more beneficial to studies of language in society than
one that is required by theoretical linguistic abstractions.

Keywords: Speech community, sociolinguistics, linguistic theorizing, group

membership, variety
 1. Introduction
Using Norwich, England, as a case study, Trudgill (1979) offers a compelling
example of variationist sociolinguistics' quick globalization. As a result,
sociolinguists are now focusing on greater systemic issues rather than fine-
grained examinations of insignificant correlations between social and
language variables. The phenomena of diglossia, code-switching,
bilingualism, multilingualism, language and culture, language and
power/language and gender, language shift, and linguistic planning are a few
examples. The fact that many languages appear to be in danger of becoming
extinct globally has made this last topic more important in recent years, as
stated by Crystal (2000).
The definition of a "real" speech community, according to Lyons (1970, p.
326), is "all the people who use a given language (or dialect)." But it just
moves the problem to making the definition of a language (or dialect) also the
definition of a speech community. It is actually very simple to show that a
speech community and a language are not the same thing. For example,
although English is spoken in many parts of the world, we also need to
acknowledge that it is spoken in a wide range of ways in speech communities
that are virtually isolated from one another, such as those among expatriates
in China, New Zealand, and South Africa.
As "the study of language in relation to society," sociolinguistics is defined,
which unintentionally implies that it is a branch of linguistics. Therefore,
sociolinguistics is valuable because it provides insights into the features of
language, either generally or specifically. It is not surprising that linguists
would find linguistic data enlightening; after all, it is hard to imagine another
aspect of a civilization that is as unique or crucial to its operation as its
language. Thus, speech communities, communities of practice, social
networks, individuals, and other divisions are the main subjects of
investigation."The study of society in relation to language" is the succinct
description given by Hudson (1996, p. 4).
The definition of a speech group that is frequently used in sociolinguistics is
to state that the speakers in that community adhere to specific linguistic
standards, or that they have a shared sentiment on language use in that
community. Wardhaugh (2010).
2. Literature Review
2.1 What is Sociolinguistics?
“Sociolinguistics is the study of language in relation to society”
( Hudson ,1996, p.1). As the new millennium begins, sociolinguistics has
matured into a dynamic, confident field of study. This argument is based on a
concern for the empirical realities of linguistic diversity and a reasonable
examination of the origins and effects of this variation and evolution. It’s
evident and inevitable that languages will evolve, and the uneven pace of that
evolution over space and time is what gives rise to the wide range of human
languages. There is a direct line between the classical objectives of
dialectology and philology and the contemporary interest in variation and
change in sociolinguistics. Language variants were characterized by
dialectology and philology, which also traced the evolution of particular
grammatical and lexical features across time (Llamas et al., 2007).
An inherent concern of traditional dialectology predated the development of
sociolinguistics, which was ushered in by the invention of portable recording
devices such as desk-sized tape recorders. By eliminating the need to
extrapolate sound-change rules backwards in time or deduce them from
written texts, this allowed scholars to compare accent variation and study
speech more confidently. As a result of technological advancements in
recording and reproducing speech, sociolinguists may now isolate individual
sounds and look for correlations between speakers' age, gender,
socioeconomic status, education level, worldview, politics, and more. New
sociolinguistic methods shed light on the workings of human society and
language in the metropolitan environments where most people in
industrialized nations live, (Llamas et al., 2007).
2.1.1 The Coinage of the Branch Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics was first used by Currie (1952) in an article that set out to
examine whether or not there was a connection between speakers'
socioeconomic status and their communication styles. Currie's paper included
no new information, but rather explored the potential for developing present
trends in linguistics, notably in dialectology, into an entirely new area. Currie
correctly predicted a shift away from focusing mostly on rural areas in
dialectology in the United States, in contrast to the situation in Europe. It's
possible that the urban context played a part in elevating the significance of
social interactions. Using data from South Carolina, McDavid (1948) found
racial differences in the use of postvocalic r. Historically, this wasn't seen as
valuable in and of itself, but as McDavid notes, "a social analysis proved
necessary because the data were too complicated to be described by only a
geographical statement." (Hudson, 1996, p.194). This provides significant
evidence that the social analysis was not an original focus of the research;
nevertheless, during the subsequent fifteen years or more, this emphasis
altered, (Ball, 2009). Labov's contributions to the field of linguistics in the
1960s brought sociolinguistics to the forefront, which led to increased
attention and acceptance.
Trudgill (1979) provides a great illustration of the rapid internationalization of
variationist sociolinguistics with its application to the city of Norwich in
England. As a result, sociolinguists are now focusing on greater systemic
issues rather than fine-grained examinations of insignificant correlations
between social and language variables. The phenomena of diglossia, code-
switching, bilingualism, multilingualism, language and culture, language and
power/language and gender, language shift, and linguistic planning are a few
examples. The fact that many languages appear to be in danger of becoming
extinct globally has made this last topic more important in recent years. As
stated by Crystal (2000).
2.1.2 The Borderline Between Sociolinguistics and Sociology
The definition of sociolinguistics, "the study of language in relation to
society," suggests (inadvertently) that sociolinguistics is a subfield of
linguistics. Consequently, the insights sociolinguistics offers into the
characteristics of language in general or a particular language make it
valuable. It makes sense that linguistic data would be instructive to linguists;
after all, it is difficult to think of another facet of a civilization that is as
special or essential to its functioning as its language. To put it simply, "the
study of society in relation to language" is what language sociology is all
about (Hidson, 1996, p. 4).
The distinction between sociolinguistics and the sociology of language largely
comes down to focus, with the former relying on the researcher's background
in language analysis and the latter on whether language or society is the
subject of more interest. Given the significant areas of agreement between the
two, it would seem futile to try and draw a more rigid distinction between
them than is already the case. However, there are some subjects that such a
textbook ought to include but does not, chief among them the so-called
"macro" sociology of language, which studies the macro-level relationships
between languages and societies (Hudson, 1996).
Studying this topic is crucial from a sociological (and political) standpoint
since it raises issues regarding the effects of multilingualism on economic
growth and potential language-related government initiatives. However, the
notion of "language X" is usually not examined in these large-scale studies,
which renders them less informative than the small-scale tests (Trudgill,
1979).
Everyone in this society speaks the same language and is fluent in the same
grammatical structures and vocabulary words. They all also pronounce these
words the same way and understand the same range of meanings. That is to
say, any discrepancy from an exact match opens the door to claims regarding
the relationship between language and society, such as "Person A knows
pronunciation M, while Person B knows pronunciation N, for the same
word,” (Wardhaugh, 2010).
2.2 Defining Speech Community
Both the individual and the social entity possess language. As a result, some
individuals may behave linguistically similarly to others and speak the same
language, dialect, or variation—that is, using the same code. They would be
regarded as belonging to the same speech community in that sense. According
to Wardhaugh (2010, p. 63), "The kind of group that sociolinguists have
generally attempted to study is called the speech community." Some linguists
have proposed the possibility of a "ideal" speech community, however this is
purely speculative. This is indeed corroborated by Chomsky's "completely
homogeneous speech-community" (1965, p. 3–4).
A "genuine" speech community, according to Lyons (1970, p. 326), is defined
as "all the people who use a given language (or dialect)." That only changes
the question to whether a language's (or a dialect's) definition also includes
the definition of a speech community. Speakers use social, cultural, political,
and ethnic characteristics, to name a few, along with linguistic characteristics
to build group identity and distinctiveness from one another. In search of a
meaningful understanding of the "speech community," we must consider
criteria beyond language, or at the very least, in addition to linguistic ones.
Labov (1992, p.120) maintains that, “One approach to defining a speech
community often taken in sociolinguistics is to say that the speakers in such a
community share some kind of common feeling about linguistic behavior in
that community, that is, they observe certain linguistic norms.”
The speech community is characterized by adhering to a set of common
standards rather than clearly agreed upon in the usage of language
components. This can be observed in overt forms of evaluative conduct as
well as in the consistency of abstract patterns of variation that are invariant
(Hudson, 1996). This definition places more emphasis on giving specific
speech patterns shared social meanings than it does on speech community
members speaking in cohesion. According to Milroy (1987, p.13), this
viewpoint has the following consequences:
For example, New Yorkers are seen as belonging to a single speech group
since they all view the post-vocalic [r] as prestigious, irrespective of social
status. They also agree that a great deal of other linguistic elements are
relevant to society. Speakers of Southern British English cannot be considered
to belong to the same speech group as individuals in New York because they
do not attach the same social meanings to words like (r); instead, the highest
prestige accent in Southern England (RP) is non-rhotic."
Thus, according to this view, what creates a speech community is not so much
how an individual speaks as it is how an individual assesses other speaking
styles. However, this is not a useful definition for research purposes, as the
values of certain speech patterns are even less obvious than linguistic
patterns. Therefore, even though the concept of shared norms is significant, it
is difficult to establish speech communities with distinct boundaries.
Since a community's distinctive rules may or may not be linguistic in nature,
the concept of the speech community is therefore somewhat vague. These
norms cover judgments of language use behaviors as well as particular
language characteristics and the social meanings and values associated with
them. In relation to a specific speech community. The idea stands for people's
knowledge and behaviors in social situations.
It is assumed that individuals behave as though they are operating within a
common set of norms, local knowledge, beliefs, and values when they interact
through discursive activities. It is essential to comprehending identification
and the portrayal of ideology that they be aware of these things and are able to
discern when they are being upheld and when the community's ideals are
being disregarded, (Morgan, 2001, p.31).
2.3 Language, Social Structure and Speech Community
Because language and social structure interact so crucially in the formation of
the speech community concept, there are multiple levels of speech
communities that correspond to different types of social groups. Linguistic
forms are classified as dialects, styles, or registers by Gumperz (1971, p. 115).
Based on geography, religion, or occupation, the speech community of
English speakers in North America can be further subdivided into smaller
groups with specific guidelines for communication.
A single speech community can include multiple languages and varieties.
According to Gumperz (1971, p.101), there is no inherent reason to define
speech communities based on common language.
Gumperz prefers the term "linguistic community" over "speech community"
due to these issues. He defines the phrase as follows:
“A social group which may be either monolingual or multilingual, held
together by frequency of social interaction patterns and set off from the
surrounding areas by weaknesses in the lines of communication.
Linguistic communities may consist of small groups bound together by
face-to-face contact or may cover large regions, depending on the level
of abstraction we wish to achieve.”
The relationships that speech groups have with other communities
characterize them. In addition to being socially cohesive within, a community
needs to be kept apart from other communities outside of it. The factors that
influence coherence and divergence change depending on the situation. For
example, a person belongs to one speech community if, at a given time, he
identifies more with North Americans than with Australians; in another
situation, he might make a distinction between the speech norms in his
Canadian speech community and those in the United States. Therefore, the
individual determines what level of speech community is significant with the
use of context and contrast.
2.4 Community of Practice
A speech community is simply a group of people who interact regularly.
These communities and groupings are dynamic in nature, with mutable
internal interactions and frequently porous boundaries. They have to keep
creating new versions of themselves. The middle class, young people,
immigrants, women, New Yorkers, and so on of today are not the people of
yesterday, nor will they be of tomorrow. The group that is selected for
identification will also vary depending on the circumstances: at one-point,
religious beliefs may be significant; at another, geographic origin; and at still
another, involvement in a specific profession or social class. A person may
also try to form a connection with someone because they share a set of
characteristics, or even just one (like being the same gender), or because they
don't share a certain attribute (like not being classified as "White"),
(Lippmann, 1992).
It seems that language bonding is no different. In one instance, mastery of a
specific skill When used as a powerful marker, dialect or language can foster
a sense of belonging and solidarity with other people (such as a group of
Americans living overseas); Thus, in a different scenario, not having such a
command might result in being marked as non-RP or non-AAVE user and be
excluded from a community of speakers.
Nevertheless, it might not matter if you speak the same dialect; if the situation
calls for you to talk about astrophysics, your familiarity with its terminology
and ideas might be more crucial than your social or regional dialect. On the
other hand, Yoruba speakers might find themselves in an English-speaking
foreign student speech community at a university in North America or
Europe, building a community with speakers of Japanese and Arabic,
(Wardhaugh (2010).
The notion that speakers are involved in several communities of practice is
one way sociolinguists attempt to arrive at this dynamic picture of social
groups. "An aggregate of people who come together around mutual
engagements in some common endeavor" is how Eckert and McConnell-
Ginet (1998, p. 490) define a community of practice. As they work together
on that project, attitudes, values, behaviors, commun. As they work together
on that project, behaviors such as speaking and acting patterns, beliefs,
values, and power dynamics, to put it simply, practices, come into being.
A community of practice can be defined as both its members and the actions
taken by them to foster a sense of community. Examples of such communities
include factory workers, extended families, adolescent friendship groups,
women's fitness classes, kindergarten classrooms, and so forth. "We need to
focus on communities of practice." Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1998)
continue, "rather than seeing the individual as some disconnected entity
floating around in social space, or as a location in a network, or as a member
of a particular group or set of groups, or as a bundle of social
characteristics."
2.5 Speech Community as Social Networks
The study of social network demonstrated how sociological social network
theory might be used to sociolinguistics and how language research may
benefit from it. If the individuals you know and interact with also know and
interact with each other, then you are considered to be a part of a thick social
network. The social network is a loose one if they do not. If the individuals in
your multiplex social network are connected to one other not only via
professional relationships but also through extracurricular pursuits, you are
considered to be a part of this social network. (To view schematics of these
various network types, according to Bell (1984).
According to Milroy (1980), groups with dense, multiplex social networks
promoted social cohesion, which in turn helped to uphold linguistic norms, in
a number of working-class neighborhoods of Belfast. The disparities among
various places that were all labeled as "working class" could be explained by
the variations in social networks. They could also explain gender inequalities
within fields with highly differentiated gender roles and occupational patterns.
Similar to how people's speech patterns can alter over their lives, so too are
certain speakers' social networks dynamic and subject to change. Additionally,
people are a part of several networks with varying degrees of power. Many
individuals today use completely new sorts of networking that were made
possible by the recent development of computers, smartphones, and other
devices. A growing body of study has examined how these virtual networks
operate as speech communities.
According to Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999), speaker contact can be used to
distinguish between communities of practice and social networks. People who
"have limited or infrequent contact" are included in the social network model,
but "regular and mutually defining interaction" is necessary for a community
of practice.
2.6 Social Identity and Speech Community
In the past, the main focus of sociolinguistic study has been on characterizing
and comprehending variations in speech patterns and the possible meanings
behind them, rather than identification per se. According to Eckert (1997, p.
64), sociolinguists have long recognized that speech variation can be used to
convey social meaning and "signal important information about aspects of
speakers’ social identity."
The primary goal of the majority of sociolinguistic study has been to
understand why people speak differently from one another (interspeaker
variation) and why people's own speech can occasionally differ from one
another (intraspeaker variation). Since the field's founding in the late 1960s,
the primary goal of sociolinguistic research has been to comprehend the social
patterning and significance of variation, or interspeaker variation. Thus, it
should come as no surprise that sociolinguistic perspectives on identity are
closely entwined with studies of language variation, and scholars often make
reference to both identity and variation when outlining the objectives of the
field (Milroy 1987, as cited in Champers, 1995).
The clearest example of this is when people switch between languages that
have distinct social connotations in their communities, a phenomenon known
as code-switching. For instance, Dubois and Horvath (2000) show how, since
many young Cajun people do not speak French, French—once employed as a
sign of identity for Cajun people in Louisiana—is being replaced in the
speech of young Cajun people with French-accented English. These young
people are speaking French-accented English because they are unable to
express their Cajun identity in French and are making do with the language
they do have.
In addition, social facts "are not determinants of linguistic facts," even when
social facts "bear heavily on linguistic ones"; correlational investigations are
descriptive rather than explanatory (Johnstone and Bean, 1997: 222). Early
variationist research, according to Mendoza Denton (2002: 475), was just "a
statistically motivated observation-cumulative-description" and provided no
explanation at all. But at the time, this essentialized understanding of identity
was the norm. From this angle, social psychologists such as Tajfel (1974)
describe social identity as follows:
“That part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his
knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together
with the emotional significance attached to that membership”, (Tajfel,
1974, p.69).
2.7 Comparing the Frameworks
When comparing the three methods, the social network and communities of
practice models appear to be more comparable to each other than to the
speech communities framework. The most well-known proponents of these
approaches—Eckert for communities of practice and Milroy for social
networks—both support qualitative techniques for gathering data, and they
both used participant observation in their separate investigations, which were
carried out in Detroit and Belfast. Furthermore, when considering
simultaneous speech community membership, the speech community model
does not even consider how group membership is established; in contrast,
both frameworks provide a comprehensive explanation of this process.
When engaging in these social practices, they mutually define themselves as
members of a community of practice, and they also simultaneously show that
they have common social and instrumental goals, as evidenced by language
practices like turning in appropriate responses to the agenda when called
upon. Due to its heterogeneous character, the speech communities’ concept
does not require any mutual involvement to denote membership or any
sharing of social/instrumental aims.
According to Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999), speaker contact can be used to
distinguish between communities of practice and social networks. Although
individuals with "limited or infrequent contact" are included in the social
network approach, a community of practice necessitates "regular and
mutually defining interaction" (1999, p. 179–80). In their analysis of social
networks and communities of practice, Milroy and Gordon (2003) contend
that the main distinctions between the two are in their approaches and areas of
focus. Communities of practice look for the "clusters that form the crucial loci
of linguistic and social practice," whereas social networks look for
connections that are meaningful to an individual (2003, p. 119).
Notwithstanding these variations, Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999: 180) propose
that one avenue for further investigation could involve developing a "metric
for an individual's level of integration into a Cof P," which could subsequently
be contrasted with the classifications established to assess the "various levels
of integration into social networks." This would be a worthwhile and
intriguing area for more research that builds on the advantages of both
frameworks.
3. Conclusion
Both an individual and a social entity possess language. Therefore, we would
anticipate that some people would behave linguistically similarly to other
people: they may be considered to speak the same language, dialect, or
variety, which would mean they would use the same code. They would belong
to the same speech community in that regard.
This idea has been interpreted differently by sociolinguists. We have the
conundrum of wishing to research speaking groups but not having a precise
idea of what constitutes a group. We will find that defining speech community
is challenging for many of the same reasons that it is challenging to describe
concepts like language, dialect, and variety.
Nevertheless, despite some "fuzziness" regarding its precise properties, this
idea has shown to be quite useful in sociolinguistic research. We need to keep
trying to define both languages and groups if we think there is a relationship
between them that is worth investigating. This study examines two alternative
approaches to grouping speakers in sociolinguistics: communities of practice
and social networks, together with several definitions of speech communities.
In conclusion, these concepts raise questions regarding how social groupings
could be identified using a framework for researching social identities to
serve as a link between personal preferences and social classifications.
 References

Ball, M. J. (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Sociolinguistics Around the

World. Routledge.
Bauer, L. and Holmes, J. (1996). ‘Getting into a flap! /t/ in New Zealand
English’, World Englishes, 15, 115–24
Bell, A. (1984). ‘Language style as audience design’, Language in Society,
13, 145–204
Chambers, J. K. (2002). Sociolinguistic Theory, 2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell.
Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.) (2002). The
Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell
Coulmas, F. (ed.) (1998). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Duranti, A. (2006). “Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S.
Congress,” Language in Society, 35, 467–97.
Eckert, P. (2003). “Sociolinguistics and authenticity: an elephant in the
room,” Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 392–97
Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (2001). Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. (1990). ‘Hedges and boosters in New Zealand women’s and men’s
speech’, Language & Communication, 10, 185–205
Hudson, R. (1996). Sociolinguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, W. (1963) “The social motivation of a sound change,” Word, 19: 273–
309.
Llamas, C., Mullany, L., & Stockwell, P. (2007). The Routledge companion to
sociolinguistics. Routledge.
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1995) Authority in Language: Investigating
Language Prescription and Standardization, New York: Routledge.
Milroy, L. (1987) Language and Social Networks, 2nd edn, Oxford: Basil
Blackwel.
Murray, T. E. (2002). “Language variation and change in the urban Midwest:
the case of St. Louis,” Language Variation and Change, 14, 347–61.
Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Holmes, J., Meyerhoff, M., & Ebooks Corporation. (2007). The handbook of
language and gender. Blackwell.
Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth : Penguin.