Language in Its Social Setting Language

Language in Its Social Setting Language is a social phenomenon. In America — as anywhere — it’s shaped by contact, conflict and incredible cultural complexity. Dennis Baron explains how. Read Summary

Is E-mail ruining the language?

Can I be fired for speaking Spanish on the job?

Are we less literate than we used to be?

These questions reflect how language is a social phenomenon. Although many linguists believe that humans are genetically programmed to learn language, it takes social contact to flip the switch that makes us talk. So, linguists study not simply the sounds, grammars and meanings of the world’s languages, but also how they function in their social settings

Language varies according to the social structure of a local speech community. For example, American English has varieties, dialects that are subsets of the larger linguistic whole called English. Some dialects vary by geography: In the North, you put the groceries in a bag; in the South, you put them in a sack.

Language expresses group identity

Language also expresses solidarity or group identity. Language can separate insiders from outsiders, those in the know from those who didn’t get the memo, the cool from the pathetically unhip, and, in the case of the Biblical shibboleth, friend from foe.

Members of small groups such as families, couples, friends, roommates and work groups all give their language a spin suited to the group’s interests and experience. Members of a profession develop a jargon, an internally efficient job-related shorthand that permits them to impress, mystify or stonewall outsiders. In simple two-person conversation, language may reflect power differentials: One person may take charge while the other plays a subordinate role.

We sometimes label the language of larger social groups a social dialect, with differences in pronunciation and usage based on social class, ethnic factors, contact with other languages, gender or age. Let’s take a look at some issues in social dialects.

Focussing on the central question of sociolinguistics as defined by Joshua Fishman (1965): ‘Who speaks what language to whom and when?

We will look at language variety and change in a social context, and we will discuss the following questions: why do people speak differently, even though they live next door to each other? Why do certain grammatical “errors” persist? What is the social significance of new language varieties and the disappearance of others? Do language changes occur naturally or do people have an impact on them? Who decides on the forms and norms of a standard language, and why does it matter? Do men and women really speak differently?

What features of society affect language? How do they do so?

Any important aspect of social structure and function is likely to have a distinctive linguistic counterpart. People belong to different social classes, perform different social rôles, and carry on different occupations

Aspects of social organization
Gender Peer group Health or disability/body image Occupation (trades, law, politics, news media, journalism, broadcasting)	Social class Age Ethnic group (may be link to regional variation) Sexuality

Social context - factors which may influence use or response
Beliefs and attitudes (science, religion, morality) Notions of propriety Political Correctness Fashions in language use	Education of speaker/writer and audience Social situation (work vs. leisure; degree of [in]formality) Intention or purpose Stereotyping

Features of society affecting language use and response may be (more or less):

• Static: e.g. ethnicity, gender, class background
• Changing: e.g. education, age, social environment, attitudes and fashions
• Situational/contextual: e.g. immediate social situation (workplace, home, recreation, peer group, perceived formality of situation)

Language features which may be affected by social categories or contexts:
Variety used Purposes Prescriptivism - notion of "correct" spoken, written and grammatical forms	Meanings (denotation and connotation) Language change Notion of propriety/social acceptability (PC and non-PC forms)

Structural features of language necessary for modeling sociolinguistics:
Lexis (special lexicons or register)	Semantics (special meanings)	Etymology (related to semantics)	Pragmatics (influence on choice of lang)	Phonology
Morphology (derivational)	Grammar/syntax	Discourse structure (in special forms - liturgy, trials)	Rhetoric (law, politics, advertising)	Style (figures of speech)

Language and gender

Historical bias: Language forms may preserve old attitudes that show men as superior (morally, spiritually, intellectually or absolutely) to women. Today this may cause offence, so we see these forms as suitable for change. But changes may be resisted if they seem clumsy.

The male as the norm: Men, man and mankind may imply this. The term for the species or people in general is the same as that for one sex only.

Personal pronouns and possessives after a noun may also show this implicit assumption. See Guidelines for Nonsexist Usage, quoted by Crystal (CEEL, p. 369), Carolyn Jacobson's Non-Sexist Language and the NCTE guidelines she quotes. See if a given text follows (any of) these guidelines or not.

Names and titles: Consider conventions of naming in marriage. Consider also titles for married and unmarried people of either sex. Why are stage performers often excepted from these "rules" (e.g. Michael Williams is married to Miss [now Dame] Judi Dench).

Look at nouns that denote workers in a given occupation. In some cases (teacher, social-worker) they may seem gender-neutral. Others may have gender-neutral denotation (doctor, lawyer, nurse) but not g-n connotation for all speakers and listeners. Speakers will show this in forms such as woman doctor, male nurse. Listeners may not show it but their expectations can be tested by statements or short narratives that allow for contradiction of assumptions (e.g. about a doctor or nurse depicted as the spouse of a man or woman, as appropriate).

Consider forms that differentiate by gender, in adding diminutive (belittling) affixes:Waitress, usherette, stewardess.

Semantic non-equivalences: These are pairs of terms that historically differentiated by sex alone, but which, over time, have gained different connotations (e.g. of status or value) and in some cases different denotations. Examples include:

Mrs,Ms/Mr; Miss/Master,Mr; mistress/master; governess/governor; spinster/bachelor; tomboy/sissy; Lady/Lord; lady/gentleman; dame/knight; bride/(bride)groom; madam/sir; queen/king; matron/patron; husband/wife; author/authoress; dog/bitch.

Patronizing, controlling and insulting: This is not just a gender issue - these are functions (or abuses) of language which may appear in any social situation. But they take particular forms when the speaker (usually) or writer is male and the addressee is female. In some cases the patronizing, controlling or insulting only works because both parties share awareness of these connotations. It is possible for the addressee not to perceive - or the speaker not to intend - the patronizing, controlling or insulting. Patronizing terms include dear, love, pet or addressing a group of adult women as girls. Note that calling men boys or lads is not seen as demeaning. (Why is this?)

Shirley Russell argues that insulting is a means of control. She quotes Julia Stanley, who claims that in a large lexicon of terms for males, 26 are non-standard nouns that denote promiscuous men. Some have approving connotation (stallion, stud). In a smaller list of nouns for women are 220 which denote promiscuity (e.g. slut, scrubber, tart). All have disapproving connotation. Equally terms denoting abstinence - like the noun phrase tight bitch - are disapproving. In Losing Out Professor Sue Lees argues that men control female behaviour by use of such terms, especially slag. Note that today both dog and bitch are used pejoratively of women. Dog denotes physical unattractiveness, while bitch denotes a fault of character.

Beauty: Judging women by appearance is well-attested by language forms. Blonde, an adjective of colour, becomes a noun, with connotations of low intelligence. Brunettehas a similar origin, as has the compound noun redhead (no common term for a woman with black hair). Babe is both approving (beauty) and disapproving (intelligence). More strongly pejorative (about intellect) is bimbo. A male equivalent - himbo - has not passed into common use. (The software on which this guide is written accepts bimbobut not himbo as a known form.) Hunk (approving) and wimp (disapproving) apply to men criteria of strength and attractiveness, but neither has clear connotation about intelligence.

Gender differences in spoken English: Keith and Shuttleworth record suggestions that:

• women - talk more than men, talk too much, are more polite, are indecisive/hesitant, complain and nag, ask more questions, support each other, are more co-operative, whereas
• men - swear more, don't talk about emotions, talk about sport more, talk about women and machines in the same way, insult each other frequently, are competitive in conversation, dominate conversation, speak with more authority, give more commands, interrupt more.