Sociolingüística tema »Idioma Variación y cambio.
La comunidad de hablantes (SPCOM), un concepto central
en la lingüística empíricos, es la intersección de muchos
principales problemas en la teoría sociolingüística y
el método. Trazo su historia de desarrollo y
divergencia, estudiar los problemas generales con las
nociones contemporáneas, y discutir enlaces a temas clave en
la investigación de la variación lingüística y el
cambio. Yo tampoco ofrecen una nueva y correcta definición ni el rechazo
(concepto de ambos esfuerzos equivocados), ni forma
exhaustiva estudiar sus aplicaciones en el campo (un imposiblemente
gran tarea).
1 Problemas generales con el habla como un concepto
Cada rama de la lingüística que se ocupa de muestras
representativas de una población; eso toma
altavoces individuales o sujetos experimentales como
miembros típicos de un grupo; que estudia como lengua
atribuible a un cuerpo social coherente (si es o no
profesa interés en la naturaleza social de
ese cuerpo); o bien toma como primitivas nociones
tales como "nativo", "competencia / rendimiento"
"Aceptabilidad", etc., que manifiestamente
se refiere a un comportamiento colectivo, se basa parcialmente en un concepto
equivalente a la SPCOM. sistemas lingüísticos son
ejercidos por los altavoces, en el espacio social: ahí están
adquirida, el cambio, son manipulados con fines
expresivos o comunicativa que se someten a desgaste, etc.
Ya sea lingüistas prefieren centrarse en los
altavoces, variedades o gramáticas, el problema de relacionar una
sistema lingüístico de sus hablantes no es trivial.
En el estudio de cambio de idioma y la variación
(geográfica o social), la referencia a la SPCOM es
ineludible, sin embargo, hay muy poco acuerdo o
discusión teórica del concepto de
la sociolingüística, aunque a menudo se ha
definido. Algunos ejemplos de informes de investigación sugieren la
grado de su extensión (sobre) (Williams 1992: 71).
El término "SPCOM" se ha utilizado para las
comunidades urbanas geográficamente delimitadas, tanto grandes
(Filadelfia; Labov 1989) y pequeñas (Anniston,
Alabama; Feagin 1996); para las zonas urbanas
( "Veeton" en Kingston, Jamaica; Patrick
1999) y subgrupos Belfast-hablantes vernáculos (Milroy y
Margrain 1980, pero ver a Macaulay 1997: 15) y
"la minoría francófona de Ontario,
Canadá "(Mougeon y Beniak 1996: 69). Se ha
negado a otras ciudades (Londres; Wardhaugh
1998: 123) sino que se utiliza para la Inglaterra
anglosajona (Labov, 1982: 35), para los inmigrantes urbanos, a diferencia
tanto desde su origen y grupos destinatarios (Kerswill
1994), y para la "unidad nacional de un
pueblo "(Dittmar, 1976: 106). Cortar a
través de líneas geográficas y de clase, se ha utilizado de muy
ensamblajes generales, tales como niños (Romaine 1982:
7) y mujeres (Coates 1993: 140), así como
las específicas y temporales, como los miembros de
ajury (Durant 1999).
Para las poblaciones rurales, se ha utilizado para
seleccionar los asentamientos con nombre de altavoces warlpiri (Bavin
1989), sino también para una discontinua, más grande
región-la-Caeltacht en Irlanda (Watson 1989) donde
altavoces no definen sus comunidades en términos
lingüísticos. Joly (1 981) denomina la afrohispana
population of Panama's Costa Abajo both a
SpCom and a "ritual community." Dimmendaal
(1989) uses SpCom for the Turkana in Kenya, who have absorbed a variety of
ethnic and linguistic groups (with consequent
language loss) and undergone significant dialect differentiation. The famously
complex case of Eastern Tukanoan
language speakers in the Vaupes region of Amazonia, where each
patrilineal exogamic group is ideally identified by language but
"one does not marry someone who speaks
one's own language"
(Gomez-Imbert 1996: 442), is
analyzed as a SpCom by Jackson
(1974: 55) but not by Gomez-Imbert.
In textbooks the SpCom is ignored
surprisingly often (Chambers
and Trudgill 1980, Chambers 1995, Downes 1998,
Wolfram and Schilling-Estes 1998, Trudgill 2000). Elsewhere it is considered too difficult to explore (Fasold 1984: 44), or treated narrowly within a single
paradigm, usually ethnographic (Fasold 1990, Romaine 1994, Salzmann
1998), with contrasting approaches
briefly outlined but not pursued.
Occasionally the SpCom is seriously treated,
but with no positive resolution of difficulties. Hudson (1996) compares
several major definitions but, starting from the premise that language is an individual possession, takes a radical
subjectivist view that ends by entirely dismissing the utility of the concept. Wardhaugh
(1998) similarly develops the idea from
idealized homogeneity to fragmented individualism,
with community dependent upon the impulse to identify oneself with others.
Instead of rejection he prefers a vague,
one-size-fits-all approach: "some kind of social group whose speech
characteristics are of interest and can be described in a coherent manner"
(1998: 116). More helpfully, but equally radically, Duranti (1997) recommends abandoning the SpCom as
"an already constituted object of
inquiry," instead taking it as an analytical perspective: "the
product of the communicative activities engaged in by a given group of
people" (1997: 82). Despite this trend towards rejection, the SpCom is still referred to by most researchers as
though it were either unproblematic or, at any rate, necessary.
This partial review suggests a general lack
of analysis and synthesis concerning the SpCom; the next section considers more thoughtful treatments.
Reading the history of this concept, one is struck by the programmatic character of the chief
sociolinguistic definitions. Many influential ones were advanced early in the field's
development-formulated in the 1960s and refined in the 1970s-perhaps as signposts staking out territories their
proponents wished to pursue. Based on a few early studies (e.g. Labov in NYC, Gumperz in India), they
reflect the concerns of each researcher-multilingualism for Gumperz, linguistic evaluation and
style-shifting for Labov, ways of speaking and communicative competence for Hymes-to the relative exclusion
of other emphases. As practitioners developing an idea for use in their own projects, each
created a contingent concept, later retooled for general use.
This retrospective view exaggerates: convergences did occur,
notably between Hymes and Gumperz. Yet when
each new conception is introduced, one finds little or no reference to existing
ones: Gumperz is not concerned with stratification, or Labov with shared
communicative patterns across language areas, while Hymes discusses
interactional criteria only with reference to Bloomfield, not Gumperz. Clearly, definitions were not developed
on the basis of any taxonomy of case studies or survey of existing work.
Despite general early concern for the
classification of sociolinguistic situations (Weinreich
1953, Ferguson 1959, 1966, Stewart
1962, Hymes 1972) and Hymes's
statement that "The natural unit for sociolinguistic
taxonomy ... is not the language but the speech community" (1972: 43),
apparently no such
enterprise has formed the basis for examination and empirical development of
the speech community concept. Indeed, the
taxonomic enterprise itself has languished or perhaps been abandoned: we have nothing equivalent to
anthropology's cross-cultural Human Relations Area Files. Though comparative studies flourish in specific areas (urban
dialectology, dialect contact, language attrition),
overall profiles and general models are lacking, such as attempts to analyze
speech communities holistically as
sociolinguistic systems and then typologize them (Trudgill, this volume).
A good deal of
theorizing in a young, expanding field is polemical in nature. Common external
targets have been structuralists' reduction of the speech community to a mere
extension of a linguistic system (Hymes 1972: 54), and Chomsky's
famous "ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech
community" (1965: 3). Within the field, Labov's (1966) definition has been repeatedly attacked, often by researchers with
similar methodological and analytical predilections Such efforts typically identify overly broad claims or narrow
restrictions in the original by introducing
based unit of linguistic analysis", and advocate an approach which addresses the issues implied in
current SpCom definitions as questions in formulating methodology and interpretations.
new data, and sometimes innovative methods. Often they over- or misinterpret
earlier ideas,
maximizing their unfashionability in the light of recent changes in direction, anchoring a
predecessor's general insight implausibly to specific associated elements as if to threaten the whole
enterprise, which can then be saved by adopting their innovation. The historical account below
attempts to sever spurious attachments, in order to enhance our vision both backwards and forwards.
maximizing their unfashionability in the light of recent changes in direction, anchoring a
predecessor's general insight implausibly to specific associated elements as if to threaten the whole
enterprise, which can then be saved by adopting their innovation. The historical account below
attempts to sever spurious attachments, in order to enhance our vision both backwards and forwards.
Another polemical tactic is
to claim that sociolinguistic research paradigms are efficiently
encapsulated by their definitions of the SpCom, which serve as proximate targets. If the view sketched
here of the concept's development is correct, these brief statements make only partial, often early or
shift ing , s t at ement s of their as sociat ed approaches' basic princi pies. To t his ext ent, radical attac ks
(or , equally , pro mot ions) mis s thei r mar k unles s t hey look t o pract ice as well as prose .
encapsulated by their definitions of the SpCom, which serve as proximate targets. If the view sketched
here of the concept's development is correct, these brief statements make only partial, often early or
shift ing , s t at ement s of their as sociat ed approaches' basic princi pies. To t his ext ent, radical attac ks
(or , equally , pro mot ions) mis s thei r mar k unles s t hey look t o pract ice as well as prose .
As the sociolinguistic research base massively expands, and the
oppositional influence of theory
groups and fou nders' ideas (Mu rray 1 996, Figueroa 1 994) perhaps begins t o recede , discus s io n of t he
SpCom shift s away fr om t he polemics of paradig m wars towards cooler engagement with relatively
abstract major issues (but see Bucholtz 1999, a recent attempt to supplant SpCom with "community
of practice"). One that has received considerable attention is the problem of appropriate social
models: the consensus-vs.-conflict debate, stratification, and social class. Two others are not always
carefully distinguished and are sometimes misguidedly opposed: the problems of correlation (linking
linguis tic behavior t o s octal position / st ruct ure) and i ndexicalit y (explaining how linguis tic forms index
social meaning) . These are relat ed t o an emphas is on linguis tic and nor mat ive uniformit y vs.
su bjective identificat ion , and a choice of focus on institutional power vs. individual agency-and thus
to another issue: scale, the size of the group studied and its influence on assumptions, methods, and
interpretation. These are not new problems for sociolinguistics, but their interrelationship and
connection to the SpCom needs clarification.
groups and fou nders' ideas (Mu rray 1 996, Figueroa 1 994) perhaps begins t o recede , discus s io n of t he
SpCom shift s away fr om t he polemics of paradig m wars towards cooler engagement with relatively
abstract major issues (but see Bucholtz 1999, a recent attempt to supplant SpCom with "community
of practice"). One that has received considerable attention is the problem of appropriate social
models: the consensus-vs.-conflict debate, stratification, and social class. Two others are not always
carefully distinguished and are sometimes misguidedly opposed: the problems of correlation (linking
linguis tic behavior t o s octal position / st ruct ure) and i ndexicalit y (explaining how linguis tic forms index
social meaning) . These are relat ed t o an emphas is on linguis tic and nor mat ive uniformit y vs.
su bjective identificat ion , and a choice of focus on institutional power vs. individual agency-and thus
to another issue: scale, the size of the group studied and its influence on assumptions, methods, and
interpretation. These are not new problems for sociolinguistics, but their interrelationship and
connection to the SpCom needs clarification.
On ground more familiar to general linguis t s , if equally u
ncert ain, two claims critically
underlie classic
definitions: the uniformity of speech by different speakers, on distinct occasions; and the possibility
of identifying a group of speakers who share a single language (or conversely, identifying the
boundaries of a language, as spoken by individuals). Notions of competence, native-ness, and
language boundaries are too basic and problematic to address here, but the SpCom represents no
escape from them.
definitions: the uniformity of speech by different speakers, on distinct occasions; and the possibility
of identifying a group of speakers who share a single language (or conversely, identifying the
boundaries of a language, as spoken by individuals). Notions of competence, native-ness, and
language boundaries are too basic and problematic to address here, but the SpCom represents no
escape from them.
Yet more fundamental issues loom. What precisely is the status
of the equation between shared
linguistic knowledge and social membership, which most definitions raise? In referring to the SpCom,
are (socio-)linguists assuming that speakers united by linguistic criteria form a social group? Is this
axiomatic? Are we instead hypothesizing, nominating this as a research question which empirical
studies will eventually answer? Is it below awareness, an equation made primarily in method, with
unexplored consequences for analysis and interpretation? Confusion on this point is rampant, with
the same author sometimes implying different positions.
linguistic knowledge and social membership, which most definitions raise? In referring to the SpCom,
are (socio-)linguists assuming that speakers united by linguistic criteria form a social group? Is this
axiomatic? Are we instead hypothesizing, nominating this as a research question which empirical
studies will eventually answer? Is it below awareness, an equation made primarily in method, with
unexplored consequences for analysis and interpretation? Confusion on this point is rampant, with
the same author sometimes implying different positions.
The SpCom is evidently fraught with difficulties. In mixing social and linguistic issues, matters of fact
and philoso phy, it bring s u s t o the brink of is sues many practici ng socioli ngui st s feel u nco mfortable
with , per haps even u npre pared to answer . For example , it is unclear whether the SpCom is primarily a
social or Ii nguis tic object (or inhabit s a g round where this dis tinct ion is u nmotivat ed) . Is it appro priate
to build a model using linguistic matter, and then treat it on a par with concepts like social group,
network, community of practice-purely social notions, in the definition of which language plays no
role? Bucholtz portrays the SpCom as "a language-based unit of social analysis" (1999: 203) and
complains of the centrality of language, contending that "all non-linguistic aspects of social activity
are marginalized or ignored" (1999: 207). For Hymes, however, the SpCom is not a naive attempt to
use language to compass a social unit, but rather "an object defined for purposes of linguistic
inquiry", not to be confused with "attributes of the counterpart of that object in social life . . . It
post ulat es t he unit of descri pt ion as a social, rather than linguis tic , ent ity" (1 974: 4 8 , 4 7) .
Ultimately I adopt a similar view, turning around Bucholtz's phrasing to
see the SpCom as "a socially-and philoso phy, it bring s u s t o the brink of is sues many practici ng socioli ngui st s feel u nco mfortable
with , per haps even u npre pared to answer . For example , it is unclear whether the SpCom is primarily a
social or Ii nguis tic object (or inhabit s a g round where this dis tinct ion is u nmotivat ed) . Is it appro priate
to build a model using linguistic matter, and then treat it on a par with concepts like social group,
network, community of practice-purely social notions, in the definition of which language plays no
role? Bucholtz portrays the SpCom as "a language-based unit of social analysis" (1999: 203) and
complains of the centrality of language, contending that "all non-linguistic aspects of social activity
are marginalized or ignored" (1999: 207). For Hymes, however, the SpCom is not a naive attempt to
use language to compass a social unit, but rather "an object defined for purposes of linguistic
inquiry", not to be confused with "attributes of the counterpart of that object in social life . . . It
post ulat es t he unit of descri pt ion as a social, rather than linguis tic , ent ity" (1 974: 4 8 , 4 7) .
based unit of linguistic analysis", and advocate an approach which addresses the issues implied in
current SpCom definitions as questions in formulating methodology and interpretations.
2. History of the Speech Community:
Principal Theorists.
The roots of the concept lie in
the general sources of sociolinguistics:
historical linguistics,
philosophy of language, dialectology, anthropology, early structuralism. Tracing "the Humboldtian
(and Herderian) sources of [American] s tr uctu rat linguis tics" (Hymes and Fought 1 9 81 : 98) t hrough
Boas , Sapir and Whorf reveal s a pers is tent tin k between co mmunity and language for m. Hymes
charact erizes a "Herderian model of one language, one people, one culture, one community-the Hopi
and t heir language , et c ." (1 974: 1 2 3) , and describes what
philosophy of language, dialectology, anthropology, early structuralism. Tracing "the Humboldtian
(and Herderian) sources of [American] s tr uctu rat linguis tics" (Hymes and Fought 1 9 81 : 98) t hrough
Boas , Sapir and Whorf reveal s a pers is tent tin k between co mmunity and language for m. Hymes
charact erizes a "Herderian model of one language, one people, one culture, one community-the Hopi
and t heir language , et c ." (1 974: 1 2 3) , and describes what
language as the object of linguistic description; equation of a language with a
speech
community (or culture); taking of the social functions of language as external, given,
and universally equivalent.
community (or culture); taking of the social functions of language as external, given,
and universally equivalent.
(Hymes 1 974: 1 20)
Von Humboldt thought we must "seek
the basic explanation of our present-day cultural level in . . .
national intellect ual individual! ties .
. . Since t hey [languages] always have a national form, nations as
such are really and directly creat ive" (1 971: 20; see Aarslef f 1 982 against the Herder-via-Hu mboldt
lineage) .
such are really and directly creat ive" (1 971: 20; see Aarslef f 1 982 against the Herder-via-Hu mboldt
lineage) .
Boas and
his students more cautiously represent the bond as
complex and note merely that
"all
languages reflect the his to ry and cult ure . . . of t he community of which t hey have been a part" (Hymes
and Fought 1 981 : 81) . Likewise Sapir , whose Mas ter's thes is invest igat ed Herder's influence on von
Hum boldt, claimed that "S peech . . . is a pu rely his torical heri tage of the g roup, the product of long-
co nt inued social u sage" (1 92 1 : 4) . Aft er Boas , he argues early o n and influentially agains t biological
det er minis m, the tin kage of language change and origins with the progress and genius of nations and
races: "Language , race and cult ure are not neces sarily cor related . . . The coincidences of cleavage
point merely t o a readily int elligible hist orical as sociation" (Sapir 1 92 1 : 2 1 5 -1 6) . He grant s no si mple
cor porate identit y to the s peakers of a language variety, and appears not to use a specific term like
SpCom.
languages reflect the his to ry and cult ure . . . of t he community of which t hey have been a part" (Hymes
and Fought 1 981 : 81) . Likewise Sapir , whose Mas ter's thes is invest igat ed Herder's influence on von
Hum boldt, claimed that "S peech . . . is a pu rely his torical heri tage of the g roup, the product of long-
co nt inued social u sage" (1 92 1 : 4) . Aft er Boas , he argues early o n and influentially agains t biological
det er minis m, the tin kage of language change and origins with the progress and genius of nations and
races: "Language , race and cult ure are not neces sarily cor related . . . The coincidences of cleavage
point merely t o a readily int elligible hist orical as sociation" (Sapir 1 92 1 : 2 1 5 -1 6) . He grant s no si mple
cor porate identit y to the s peakers of a language variety, and appears not to use a specific term like
SpCom.
Hymes embraces a
basic idea of the "Herderian" approach: "emphasis on language as
constituting
cultural ident ity . . . a met hodology of sympathetic int erpretation of cult Ural diver sit y s ui generi s-
Herder coined t he German verb einfuhlen-if wit hin a larger u niversal framework" (1 974: 1 20) . (See
Meyerhoff, this volu me; the last phrase af firm s t he pos sibility of taxono my and comparison , cont ra
Vico.) Hymes cautions that "the focus, however, must be changed from a language as a correlate of a
people, to persons and their ways of s peaking" (1 974: 1 2 3) .
cultural ident ity . . . a met hodology of sympathetic int erpretation of cult Ural diver sit y s ui generi s-
Herder coined t he German verb einfuhlen-if wit hin a larger u niversal framework" (1 974: 1 20) . (See
Meyerhoff, this volu me; the last phrase af firm s t he pos sibility of taxono my and comparison , cont ra
Vico.) Hymes cautions that "the focus, however, must be changed from a language as a correlate of a
people, to persons and their ways of s peaking" (1 974: 1 2 3) .
Other ni neteenth
centu ry hi st orical Ii ngui st s give the co mmu nity's role s hort s hrift. Sau s su re s peaks
only in pas sing of a "community of speakers" in the context of explanations for language change. For
Whi tney (1 979) , individuals i nnovate but co mmu ni ties act ually change languages by select ing among
innovatio ns: "Language is not an i ndividual posses sion , bu t a social . . . The co mmunity . . . [is the] final
tribu nal which decides whether anyt hing s hall be language or not" (1 979: 1 4 9-5 0) . This pos ition i s
held by Gauchat (1 905 , Wei nreich et al. 1 96 8) and Sapi r, in his di scu s sio n of drift (1 92 1 , Ferguson
1 996) . Further elaboratio n by his torical linguis t s is slow ar riving. Even in 1 960 Mart inet , observi ng
that "We mu st firs t of all attem pt to define the not ion of a linguis tic com munit y, if such a thing is
po ss ible" (1 96 4: 1 36) , does so m ini malty. He not es variat ion within varieties , and alternatio n between
them , bu t affir ms st raightforward ext ens ion of a language to a set of speakers: "Human beings who
belong to o ne or more lingui st ic co mmunities . . . use one or the other language according to the
person addres sed" (1 96 4: 1 3 9) .
only in pas sing of a "community of speakers" in the context of explanations for language change. For
Whi tney (1 979) , individuals i nnovate but co mmu ni ties act ually change languages by select ing among
innovatio ns: "Language is not an i ndividual posses sion , bu t a social . . . The co mmunity . . . [is the] final
tribu nal which decides whether anyt hing s hall be language or not" (1 979: 1 4 9-5 0) . This pos ition i s
held by Gauchat (1 905 , Wei nreich et al. 1 96 8) and Sapi r, in his di scu s sio n of drift (1 92 1 , Ferguson
1 996) . Further elaboratio n by his torical linguis t s is slow ar riving. Even in 1 960 Mart inet , observi ng
that "We mu st firs t of all attem pt to define the not ion of a linguis tic com munit y, if such a thing is
po ss ible" (1 96 4: 1 36) , does so m ini malty. He not es variat ion within varieties , and alternatio n between
them , bu t affir ms st raightforward ext ens ion of a language to a set of speakers: "Human beings who
belong to o ne or more lingui st ic co mmunities . . . use one or the other language according to the
person addres sed" (1 96 4: 1 3 9) .
1 . Definition . An act of speech is an
utterance. 2. Assumption. Within certain
community is a
speech community.
(Bloomf
ield 1 92 6: 1 5 3 - 4).
This formulation highlights
the problem of linguistic uniformity (how alike must utterances
be, and in
what ways, to constitute their speakers as sharing a speech community?), smuggling in "community"
as an unquestioned prime-two problems that remain with us. A later, widely-read version emphasizes
that intelligibility governs the boundaries of SpComs-though since this is a continuum, "the term
speech-community has only a relative value" (Bloomfield 1 93 3: 5 4) . By this cr iterion , "speech-
co mmu ni ties differ greatly in s ize" (1 9 3 3: 43) , while bili nguals belong t o disparate com munit ies.
8100 mfi eld also not es variat ion within si ngle communities on geographic and social axes. He thus
touches on problems of scale, overlapping communities, and normative heterogeneity.
what ways, to constitute their speakers as sharing a speech community?), smuggling in "community"
as an unquestioned prime-two problems that remain with us. A later, widely-read version emphasizes
that intelligibility governs the boundaries of SpComs-though since this is a continuum, "the term
speech-community has only a relative value" (Bloomfield 1 93 3: 5 4) . By this cr iterion , "speech-
co mmu ni ties differ greatly in s ize" (1 9 3 3: 43) , while bili nguals belong t o disparate com munit ies.
8100 mfi eld also not es variat ion within si ngle communities on geographic and social axes. He thus
touches on problems of scale, overlapping communities, and normative heterogeneity.
Crucially, he explains both i nter nal variation and external boundaries by interactional networks: "a
speech-community is a group of people who interact by means of s peech" (Bloomfield 1 93 3: 42) .
Gumperz attri bu tes t hi s t o s truct uralis t awarenes s of dialect geography findi ng s: "By t he mid 1 9 3 Os . . .
language change could thus be explained as a direct function of the amount and intensity of verbal
int eract ion among s peakers" (1 972: 2 3 ; bu t see Milroy and Milroy 1 998) . In t hi s view, "differences of
speech wit hin a co mmu ni ty are due to dif ferences in densi ty of co mmu nication" (Bloom field 1 9 33:
speech-community is a group of people who interact by means of s peech" (Bloomfield 1 93 3: 42) .
Gumperz attri bu tes t hi s t o s truct uralis t awarenes s of dialect geography findi ng s: "By t he mid 1 9 3 Os . . .
language change could thus be explained as a direct function of the amount and intensity of verbal
int eract ion among s peakers" (1 972: 2 3 ; bu t see Milroy and Milroy 1 998) . In t hi s view, "differences of
speech wit hin a co mmu ni ty are due to dif ferences in densi ty of co mmu nication" (Bloom field 1 9 33:
46), while "sub- grou ps are separated by lines of weakness in this net of oral com mu nication" (1 93 3:
47) . He i ncludes
social classes , age- groups , and occu pat ions ; i ndeed t he chapter
, entit led "Speech-
Communities," is es sent tally a survey of extra-linguis tic correlat ions . The di scu ss io n is prim itive
co mpared t o later sociolinguis t s ' use of social networ k t heory (beginning perhaps wi th Fis hman
1 971 a); and social feat ures are largely discounted as influences on linguistic structure, as issues of
linguis tic relativity are subsequent ly sup pres sed by universalis t s (Gumperz and Levinson 1 996) . Yet
8100 mfield's emphas is on i nt eract ion , and his sugges tion t hat i t s impact might be quantif ied,
import antly prefigure wor k by Gu mperz and the Milroys . The idea that networ ks are neut rat and
mechanical i n effect remains crit ical .
Communities," is es sent tally a survey of extra-linguis tic correlat ions . The di scu ss io n is prim itive
co mpared t o later sociolinguis t s ' use of social networ k t heory (beginning perhaps wi th Fis hman
1 971 a); and social feat ures are largely discounted as influences on linguistic structure, as issues of
linguis tic relativity are subsequent ly sup pres sed by universalis t s (Gumperz and Levinson 1 996) . Yet
8100 mfield's emphas is on i nt eract ion , and his sugges tion t hat i t s impact might be quantif ied,
import antly prefigure wor k by Gu mperz and the Milroys . The idea that networ ks are neut rat and
mechanical i n effect remains crit ical .
In the early 1 9605 , sociolingui st s elabor at ed t he S pCom. Clas s
ic defini tio ns were s till bei ng
offered-
"all the peo ple who use a given language (or dialect)" (Lyons 1 970: 3 2 6)- bu t Gu mperz in 1 96 2 located
the problem: "While the anthropologist's description refers to specific communities, the universe of
linguistic analysis is a single language or dialect, a body of verbal signs abstracted from the totality of
communicative behavior" (1972: 460). From the latter position many problems of language use are
inaccessible; Gumperz was interested, among others, in language choice and code switching in
multili ngual setti ng s . Wei nreich (1 95 3) , bridging the gap between structural and functional
approaches, introduced the notion of "bilingual speech community" in opposition to extensions of the
classic position, such as Mackey's:
"all the peo ple who use a given language (or dialect)" (Lyons 1 970: 3 2 6)- bu t Gu mperz in 1 96 2 located
the problem: "While the anthropologist's description refers to specific communities, the universe of
linguistic analysis is a single language or dialect, a body of verbal signs abstracted from the totality of
communicative behavior" (1972: 460). From the latter position many problems of language use are
inaccessible; Gumperz was interested, among others, in language choice and code switching in
multili ngual setti ng s . Wei nreich (1 95 3) , bridging the gap between structural and functional
approaches, introduced the notion of "bilingual speech community" in opposition to extensions of the
classic position, such as Mackey's:
communities; it does not suppose the existence of a bilingual community. The
bilingual
community can only be regarded as a dependent collection of individuals who have
reasons for being bilingual.
community can only be regarded as a dependent collection of individuals who have
reasons for being bilingual.
(Mac key 1 9 72 : 5 5 4)
Gumperz,
reformulating the SpCom "as a social group which may be either monolingual
or
multilingual," adopts "the term _linguistic community' by analogy with Emeneau's term _linguistic
area'" (1 972 : 46 3)- point ing to wor k which demons trated that s octal contact leads t o extens ive
st ructu rat parallels acros s t he bou ndaries no t only of i ndividual languages, but of language families
(Emeneau 1 956) . However , Gu m perz clearly did no t intend to im ply t he tr adit tonal conce pt was
adequate; in 1 96 8 he revi sed the not ion but retur ned t o the term S pCom .
multilingual," adopts "the term _linguistic community' by analogy with Emeneau's term _linguistic
area'" (1 972 : 46 3)- point ing to wor k which demons trated that s octal contact leads t o extens ive
st ructu rat parallels acros s t he bou ndaries no t only of i ndividual languages, but of language families
(Emeneau 1 956) . However , Gu m perz clearly did no t intend to im ply t he tr adit tonal conce pt was
adequate; in 1 96 8 he revi sed the not ion but retur ned t o the term S pCom .
His approach is explicitly
functional: "The criterion for inclusion of a code in a study of a
linguistic
community is that its exclusion will produce a gap i n the co mmu nicat ion matrix" (1 972: 46 4) . In t his
spirit he facilitates the t axonomic enter pri se , recom mending a t ypology of relat ionships "between the
community is that its exclusion will produce a gap i n the co mmu nicat ion matrix" (1 972: 46 4) . In t his
spirit he facilitates the t axonomic enter pri se , recom mending a t ypology of relat ionships "between the
developing a terminology (largely abandoned) to allow more general
formulations.
Gumperz' initial
version of SpCom closely follows
Bloomfield (1933) in its
focus on the frequency of
social int eract ion . Int eres tingly, Hy mes lat er insi st s t hat frequency is not enough . Rather , he claim s
(citing Gu mperz' own finding s) , the "definit ion of situations in which , and identi ties through which,
int eract ion occurs is deci sive" (1 974: 4 7) . I nit tally Gu mperz, Ii ke Bloom field , leaves o pen ques tions of
scale: lingu is tic com mu nit ies " may cons is t of s mall g rou ps bou nd toget her by face-to-face cont act or
may cover large regions , de pendi ng on t he level of abs tr act ion we Wis h t o achieve" (Gumperz 1 972:
46 3) . No te hi s i mplication that s octal cohesion i s opt tonal ; Hymes wil I not allow that "ident ity, or
co mmonalit y, of Ii nguis t ic knowledge" is sufficient t o unify members of a co mmunity (1 974: 4 7) .
social int eract ion . Int eres tingly, Hy mes lat er insi st s t hat frequency is not enough . Rather , he claim s
(citing Gu mperz' own finding s) , the "definit ion of situations in which , and identi ties through which,
int eract ion occurs is deci sive" (1 974: 4 7) . I nit tally Gu mperz, Ii ke Bloom field , leaves o pen ques tions of
scale: lingu is tic com mu nit ies " may cons is t of s mall g rou ps bou nd toget her by face-to-face cont act or
may cover large regions , de pendi ng on t he level of abs tr act ion we Wis h t o achieve" (Gumperz 1 972:
46 3) . No te hi s i mplication that s octal cohesion i s opt tonal ; Hymes wil I not allow that "ident ity, or
co mmonalit y, of Ii nguis t ic knowledge" is sufficient t o unify members of a co mmunity (1 974: 4 7) .
In the 1 96 8 revis
ion, Gu mperz introduces two element s
absent fro m the previou s definit ion (which
de pended enti rely on social criteria) . Bot h are shared with Labov and Hymes, and enormously
influential in subsequent conceptions. He defines the SpCom as "any human aggregate characterized
by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar
aggregates by significant differences in language usage" (1968: 381). This "shared body" reintroduces
common linguistic knowledge as a necessary criterion. He adds that "speech varieties employed within
a s peech community form a syst em becau se t hey are relat ed to a s hared set of social nor ms" (1 96 8:
382); such normative regulat ion is al so at the heart of Labov's conception.
de pended enti rely on social criteria) . Bot h are shared with Labov and Hymes, and enormously
influential in subsequent conceptions. He defines the SpCom as "any human aggregate characterized
by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar
aggregates by significant differences in language usage" (1968: 381). This "shared body" reintroduces
common linguistic knowledge as a necessary criterion. He adds that "speech varieties employed within
a s peech community form a syst em becau se t hey are relat ed to a s hared set of social nor ms" (1 96 8:
382); such normative regulat ion is al so at the heart of Labov's conception.
This pair
of criteria alone satisfies many
sociolinguists as an all-purpose definition. For Fishman
(1971b: 28), a SpCom is a subtype of community "all of whose members share at least a single speech
variety and the nor ms for it s appropriat e u se ." Ec kert and McConnell-Ginet (1 998: 4 90) claim that
though Ii p- service is u sually paid to a Rules+ Norm s model (ironically credit ed to Gum perz 1 982) ,
sociolinguis t s "seldom recognize explici fly t he crucial role of pract ice in delineat ing s peech
co mmunities" In such characterizations the interactional criterion is omitted. Fishman and many
others reduce the Rules component to a minimum collective competence in grammatical knowledge.
Kerswill (1 994) , viewing Gu mperz' larger body of work, proposes a more complex interpretation of
this "shared body." He believes it refers not only to "linguistic similarities among the various codes in
use", but also to "agreement on the social meaning of various linguis t ic paramet ers" (1 994: 2 4) ,
including sociolingui st ic variables , code switching , and co nt extualization cues; such parameters can
only be fully understood by members of the same SpCom. However, I separate shared grammatical
competence as a criterion from organization and interpretation of sociolinguistic norms.
(1971b: 28), a SpCom is a subtype of community "all of whose members share at least a single speech
variety and the nor ms for it s appropriat e u se ." Ec kert and McConnell-Ginet (1 998: 4 90) claim that
though Ii p- service is u sually paid to a Rules+ Norm s model (ironically credit ed to Gum perz 1 982) ,
sociolinguis t s "seldom recognize explici fly t he crucial role of pract ice in delineat ing s peech
co mmunities" In such characterizations the interactional criterion is omitted. Fishman and many
others reduce the Rules component to a minimum collective competence in grammatical knowledge.
Kerswill (1 994) , viewing Gu mperz' larger body of work, proposes a more complex interpretation of
this "shared body." He believes it refers not only to "linguistic similarities among the various codes in
use", but also to "agreement on the social meaning of various linguis t ic paramet ers" (1 994: 2 4) ,
including sociolingui st ic variables , code switching , and co nt extualization cues; such parameters can
only be fully understood by members of the same SpCom. However, I separate shared grammatical
competence as a criterion from organization and interpretation of sociolinguistic norms.
Gum perz' revi sion
(1 982) expres ses ideas s hared wi th Hymes and Labov:
A SpCom is defined in
functionalist terms as a system of
organized diversity held
together by common norm s and as pirations . . . Member s of such a community typically
vary wit h res pect to cert ain beliefs and ot her as pect s of behavior . Such variat ion , which
seem s irregular when observed at the level of the individual, nonetheless shows
systematic regularities at the statistical level of social facts.
together by common norm s and as pirations . . . Member s of such a community typically
vary wit h res pect to cert ain beliefs and ot her as pect s of behavior . Such variat ion , which
seem s irregular when observed at the level of the individual, nonetheless shows
systematic regularities at the statistical level of social facts.
(Gum perz 1 9 82: 2 4).
This definition
sympathetically assimilates Labov's work into a broader social framework. Yet
Gumperz makes clear that he is more interested in exploring how interaction, including language,
constitutes social reality. From this perspective he seriously questions the applicability of the SpCom
conce pt (1 982: 2 6) .
Gumperz makes clear that he is more interested in exploring how interaction, including language,
constitutes social reality. From this perspective he seriously questions the applicability of the SpCom
conce pt (1 982: 2 6) .
Classic definitions conceived of it as a "linguistic distribution
within a social or geographical
space" (Gum perz 1 972: 46 3) ; some cu rrent models require "a geogr aphical area delimited by non-
linguis tic criteria, such as demography or socio- polit ical boundaries" (Kerswill 1 994: 2 3) . Dialect
geography and anthropology, too, have often assumed that the most local and insular units are
so mehow the pu res t and st ronges t , t hu s t he canonical com munity . But Gumperz ci tes a worldwide
weakening of social boundaries and deference to group norms, drawing attention to the processes by
which individuals index identity. This requires a renewed focus on face-to-face interaction,
ethnographic observation, and a consequent restriction to small-scale studies. In effect he first
space" (Gum perz 1 972: 46 3) ; some cu rrent models require "a geogr aphical area delimited by non-
linguis tic criteria, such as demography or socio- polit ical boundaries" (Kerswill 1 994: 2 3) . Dialect
geography and anthropology, too, have often assumed that the most local and insular units are
so mehow the pu res t and st ronges t , t hu s t he canonical com munity . But Gumperz ci tes a worldwide
weakening of social boundaries and deference to group norms, drawing attention to the processes by
which individuals index identity. This requires a renewed focus on face-to-face interaction,
ethnographic observation, and a consequent restriction to small-scale studies. In effect he first
sought in earlier approaches-and t hen abandons (though does not dismiss) it as
a research focus.
This move is influential in current debates, where the divorce of the correlational and indexing
This move is influential in current debates, where the divorce of the correlational and indexing
enterprises assumes an appearance of
historical inevitability.
That, however, is not Gumperz' current
perspective. As part of a rejuvenated linguistic anthropological
interest in social indexicality, he maintains his interest in face-to-face interaction:
interest in social indexicality, he maintains his interest in face-to-face interaction:
If meaning resides in interpret
ive practices . . . located in the
social networks one is
socialized in, then the "culture-" and "language-" bearing units are not nations, ethnic
grou ps or t he Ii ke . . . but rat her networ ks of int eracting individuals .
socialized in, then the "culture-" and "language-" bearing units are not nations, ethnic
grou ps or t he Ii ke . . . but rat her networ ks of int eracting individuals .
(Gum perz and
Levinson 1 996: 1 1 ).
Such networks may
"cross-cut linguistic and social
boundaries of all sorts, creating regional and even
global patterns of shared, similar communicative st rategies in s pecialist networ ks" (1 996: 1 2) . In
order to locate both local and extended networks, and to grapple with supra-local problems such as
standard language ideologies, a familiar larger entity is required: "Speech communities, broadly
conceived, can be regarded as collectivities of social networ ks" (Gum perz 1 996: 36 2) . I n this view, the
rehabilit ated S pCom is not an abstract nexus of category lines, but instead is composed of network
building- blocks in which "interpret ive st rategies are embedded . . . and passed on as shared
communicative traditions." The difficulty with studying social meaning above the network level is that
"indexicality reflect[s] network-specific practices" while SpComs "tend towards diversification and this
restricts the extent to which linguistic forms, conceptual structures, and culture are shared" (1996:
363). Thus a notion of SpCom persists, but not one which presumes or requires unity of norms and
ways of speaking. This notion inhabits an upper region of the scale, and must allow for nesting and
interlocking network patterns.
global patterns of shared, similar communicative st rategies in s pecialist networ ks" (1 996: 1 2) . In
order to locate both local and extended networks, and to grapple with supra-local problems such as
standard language ideologies, a familiar larger entity is required: "Speech communities, broadly
conceived, can be regarded as collectivities of social networ ks" (Gum perz 1 996: 36 2) . I n this view, the
rehabilit ated S pCom is not an abstract nexus of category lines, but instead is composed of network
building- blocks in which "interpret ive st rategies are embedded . . . and passed on as shared
communicative traditions." The difficulty with studying social meaning above the network level is that
"indexicality reflect[s] network-specific practices" while SpComs "tend towards diversification and this
restricts the extent to which linguistic forms, conceptual structures, and culture are shared" (1996:
363). Thus a notion of SpCom persists, but not one which presumes or requires unity of norms and
ways of speaking. This notion inhabits an upper region of the scale, and must allow for nesting and
interlocking network patterns.
This extended discussion
of Gumperz' approaches to the SpCom has
served to introduce many
themes still current and problematic. One might have done the same via other theorists; Gumperz is
convenient because his definitions are clear and easily dated in their progress, not subsumed early on
into a theoretical or methodological apparatus which promotes other concepts as more basic-as with
Hymes and Labov. Consideration of their competing and complementary approaches will be
contrastive as much as historical, but the progressive focusing of Gumperz' views raises a key
question: has the SpCom become restricted to certain (possibly incompatible) paradigms of sociolin-
guistics, or is a broad conception still viable? (Though indeed the idea began in particular contexts,
early efforts all tended towards generalization.)
themes still current and problematic. One might have done the same via other theorists; Gumperz is
convenient because his definitions are clear and easily dated in their progress, not subsumed early on
into a theoretical or methodological apparatus which promotes other concepts as more basic-as with
Hymes and Labov. Consideration of their competing and complementary approaches will be
contrastive as much as historical, but the progressive focusing of Gumperz' views raises a key
question: has the SpCom become restricted to certain (possibly incompatible) paradigms of sociolin-
guistics, or is a broad conception still viable? (Though indeed the idea began in particular contexts,
early efforts all tended towards generalization.)
Dell Hymes has always
maintained a broad notion of the SpCom, rooted in his understanding of the
sociolinguistic enterprise:
sociolinguistic enterprise:
Speech community is a
necessary, primary conce pt . . . It
postulates the unit of
description as a social, rather than linguistic, entity. One starts with a social group and
considers the entire organization of linguistic means within it .
description as a social, rather than linguistic, entity. One starts with a social group and
considers the entire organization of linguistic means within it .
(Hymes 1974: 47).
In many respects Hymes and Gumperz
agree: in shifting the classical focus from varieties to the
relations among speakers, discarding on functional grounds the restriction to monolingual situations,
promoting sociolinguistic taxonomy, and insisting on both shared grammar and shared norms. Where
Gumperz' descriptions start from individuals (like social network theory and the community of
practice approach), emphasizing speaker agency, boundary shifting and emergent meaning,
ethnography of communication began with a concern for collective resources, bounded events, and
ritual performance, privileging community and structure-it focused on social meaning, but was not
speaker-based.
relations among speakers, discarding on functional grounds the restriction to monolingual situations,
promoting sociolinguistic taxonomy, and insisting on both shared grammar and shared norms. Where
Gumperz' descriptions start from individuals (like social network theory and the community of
practice approach), emphasizing speaker agency, boundary shifting and emergent meaning,
ethnography of communication began with a concern for collective resources, bounded events, and
ritual performance, privileging community and structure-it focused on social meaning, but was not
speaker-based.
In Hymes's theorizing, the nature of the
SpCom is inferred from more basic terms: "The starting point
concu rence of rules of grammar and rules of use" CHymes I 974:
I 20) . It i s not a methodological
prime: one cannot know what practices are critical, or who shares in them, before a study has been
carried out . Communicative competence, ways of speaking (especially) and verbal repertoire are
principal term s . (Privileging context s and institutions as a vantage point yields an alternative, more
abstract approach, "the study of the speech economy of a community" C I 974: 46) , pursued by Gal
I 989, Irvine I 989, Silverstein I 996, among others.) An ideal ethnographer of speaking identifies a
verbal repertoire, catalogues speech events and rules of communicative practice, and describes what
communicative competence consists of: the SpCom can then be defined as the set of speakers who
appropriately exploit these resources. As in the classic definition, SpCom members are an identifiable
existing group located and bounded by shared knowledge-though Hymes stresses social knowledge
of language functions and norms.
prime: one cannot know what practices are critical, or who shares in them, before a study has been
carried out . Communicative competence, ways of speaking (especially) and verbal repertoire are
principal term s . (Privileging context s and institutions as a vantage point yields an alternative, more
abstract approach, "the study of the speech economy of a community" C I 974: 46) , pursued by Gal
I 989, Irvine I 989, Silverstein I 996, among others.) An ideal ethnographer of speaking identifies a
verbal repertoire, catalogues speech events and rules of communicative practice, and describes what
communicative competence consists of: the SpCom can then be defined as the set of speakers who
appropriately exploit these resources. As in the classic definition, SpCom members are an identifiable
existing group located and bounded by shared knowledge-though Hymes stresses social knowledge
of language functions and norms.
Knowledge of ways of
speaking, and ability, are unequally distributed within a community, however,
raising the problem of how much knowledge is required (Dorian I 982) , while knowledge alone is not
sufficient to distinguish members from mere participants Ce.g. experienced fieldworkers), as Hymes
acknowledges C I 974: 5 0- I ) . He allows wholly non-linguis tic crit eria here, such as birthright,
remindi ng us that hi s conce pt ion presu mes a cohesive ent ity, not jus t a set of i nt eract ing s peakers-a
st ricter requirement than Gu mperz' loose interactional collectivity. Thu s Hymes's "socially const ituted
linguistics" C I 974: I 96) looks to social material to constrain the ways in which language is
encountered empirically. His SpCom is a socially-based unit of linguistic analysis, and he explicitly
warns that sociolinguistics "requires the contribution of social science in characterising the notions of
community, and of membership" Pending this solution, however, he follows early Gumperz in
specifying "a local unit, characterised for its members by common locality and primary
int eract ion" C I 974: 5 I ) .
raising the problem of how much knowledge is required (Dorian I 982) , while knowledge alone is not
sufficient to distinguish members from mere participants Ce.g. experienced fieldworkers), as Hymes
acknowledges C I 974: 5 0- I ) . He allows wholly non-linguis tic crit eria here, such as birthright,
remindi ng us that hi s conce pt ion presu mes a cohesive ent ity, not jus t a set of i nt eract ing s peakers-a
st ricter requirement than Gu mperz' loose interactional collectivity. Thu s Hymes's "socially const ituted
linguistics" C I 974: I 96) looks to social material to constrain the ways in which language is
encountered empirically. His SpCom is a socially-based unit of linguistic analysis, and he explicitly
warns that sociolinguistics "requires the contribution of social science in characterising the notions of
community, and of membership" Pending this solution, however, he follows early Gumperz in
specifying "a local unit, characterised for its members by common locality and primary
int eract ion" C I 974: 5 I ) .
Yet from the start, Hymes's approach emphasizes shared
norms over interaction. He restates
Bloomfield's fundamental principle of linguistic theory: "in a speech community some utterances are
the same," in terms of normative information derived from speech events: "in a speech community,
so me ways of s peaking are the same" C I 974: 2 0 I ) . Way s of speaki ng imply knowledge not only of
forms and their co-occurrence, but also their social distribution and appropriacy for social function.
The uniformity problem thus shifts its focus from linguistic production to community-based
interpretation.
Bloomfield's fundamental principle of linguistic theory: "in a speech community some utterances are
the same," in terms of normative information derived from speech events: "in a speech community,
so me ways of s peaking are the same" C I 974: 2 0 I ) . Way s of speaki ng imply knowledge not only of
forms and their co-occurrence, but also their social distribution and appropriacy for social function.
The uniformity problem thus shifts its focus from linguistic production to community-based
interpretation.
There are obviou s
links to Labov's C I 966) concept ion ,
perhaps the firs t t o cou ple productive and
evaluative norm s. Both place value on describing normative behavior, as displayed consciously and
unconsciously by speakers. It has proven more difficult to grasp how norms develop and change, are
acquired and understood-but this is a question which interaction-based analysis must also answer.
Language socialization theory COchs I 996) addresses this , and practice theorist s CEc kert 2 000 ,
Meyerhoff , t his volume) have begun to explore it, both from anthropological traditions. More
sociologically-inclined adherents of network theory, such as the Milroys, say little about local norms
at this level, despite crucial contributions to modeling networks as channels for linguistic change
(often styled "mechanisms" for norm enforcement) and "prerequisite[s] for a focused set of distinctive
vernacular norms" CMilroy and Milroy I 998: I 88) . Their point that networ ks are a neut rat, relative
st ructural concept C I 998: I 93) indicat es t he need for companion s tudies of linguis tic ideology t o
ex plore the values being transm itt ed across weak or s trong ties .
evaluative norm s. Both place value on describing normative behavior, as displayed consciously and
unconsciously by speakers. It has proven more difficult to grasp how norms develop and change, are
acquired and understood-but this is a question which interaction-based analysis must also answer.
Language socialization theory COchs I 996) addresses this , and practice theorist s CEc kert 2 000 ,
Meyerhoff , t his volume) have begun to explore it, both from anthropological traditions. More
sociologically-inclined adherents of network theory, such as the Milroys, say little about local norms
at this level, despite crucial contributions to modeling networks as channels for linguistic change
(often styled "mechanisms" for norm enforcement) and "prerequisite[s] for a focused set of distinctive
vernacular norms" CMilroy and Milroy I 998: I 88) . Their point that networ ks are a neut rat, relative
st ructural concept C I 998: I 93) indicat es t he need for companion s tudies of linguis tic ideology t o
ex plore the values being transm itt ed across weak or s trong ties .
Hymes's model supports multiple
varieties, like Gumperz', and insists on
shared form in addition to
shared ways of speaking, unlike many later definitions privileging the latter (Romaine I 994: 22,
Fasold I 990: 4 I , Tras k I 997: 2 04) . That the two may diverge is usefully captured in the Sprachbund /
Sprechbund distinction CNeustupny I 978)-areal terms defined on just these grounds-but a SpCom
must be located in the union of the two CHymes I 974: 50 gives a more precise account). Orientation
to linguistic uniformity is often a dividing line for theorists: where later Gumperz downplays it, radical
su bjectivi st s deny it (Corder I 973, Hudson I 996) and variationists privilege it CLabov's "uniform
st ructural base" I 989: 2, Kerswill I 994, Kroch I 996). Hymes, like Labov, holds a nuanced view,
interpreting uniformity as an abstract regularity, not equivalent to identity of forms. Recognizing that
language use may constitute social relationships, he suggests that a scale of distinctiveness be left
open: "Part of the creativity of users of language lies in the freedom to determine what and how much
shared ways of speaking, unlike many later definitions privileging the latter (Romaine I 994: 22,
Fasold I 990: 4 I , Tras k I 997: 2 04) . That the two may diverge is usefully captured in the Sprachbund /
Sprechbund distinction CNeustupny I 978)-areal terms defined on just these grounds-but a SpCom
must be located in the union of the two CHymes I 974: 50 gives a more precise account). Orientation
to linguistic uniformity is often a dividing line for theorists: where later Gumperz downplays it, radical
su bjectivi st s deny it (Corder I 973, Hudson I 996) and variationists privilege it CLabov's "uniform
st ructural base" I 989: 2, Kerswill I 994, Kroch I 996). Hymes, like Labov, holds a nuanced view,
interpreting uniformity as an abstract regularity, not equivalent to identity of forms. Recognizing that
language use may constitute social relationships, he suggests that a scale of distinctiveness be left
open: "Part of the creativity of users of language lies in the freedom to determine what and how much
linguistic difference matters" (Hymes
1974: 123) to boundary maintenance.
William Labov's SpCom conception has been enormously influential. It is
more empirically-rooted, less
generalized, than Hymes's or Gumperz'. It emerges in the course of a well-defined program of
research on language structure and change, rather than in the context of sociolinguistic theorizing.
Consider three aspects.
generalized, than Hymes's or Gumperz'. It emerges in the course of a well-defined program of
research on language structure and change, rather than in the context of sociolinguistic theorizing.
Consider three aspects.
1 It is closely based on results from a series of urban studies which
established goals for later
researchers; its outlines emerge from a particular set of questions and answers, and may be
inappropriate for others.
researchers; its outlines emerge from a particular set of questions and answers, and may be
inappropriate for others.
2 More than other theorists, Labov makes
explicit and testable his conceptions of
linguistic
uniformity and normative sociolinguistic structure, which have been widely adopted and
debated.
uniformity and normative sociolinguistic structure, which have been widely adopted and
debated.
3 It is allied to a rich array of methods,
also commonly used-often by researchers with
diverging assumptions and objectives.
diverging assumptions and objectives.
Labov's definition
was the first to posit both shared norms and linguistic uniformity (as structured
variation), in that order, as criteria for identifying a SpCom. While Romaine and others incorrectly
charged that in Labov's conception of uniformity, SpCom members "share rules of grammar in the
form of variable rules" (Ro maine 1 982 : 1 9) , the var table rule (Labov 1 96 9) is not hi s solution t o the
problem. (Romai ne her self ad mi t s it is peri pher al to the SpCo m: "t he thrus t of my argument i s against
the s pecific descri pt ive device , the variable rule ," (1 982 : 2 3); but the m isunder st anding persis t s , e . g .
Kerswill 1 994: 1 3 7.) Inst ead this is handled through the earlier invention of the linguistic variable
(Labov 1 966: 32ff) , a set of variant s which is s pecifiable inde pendent of any predict ability by linguistic
conditioning , and capable of crossing phonemic or morphemic lines. The normal heterogeneity
characteristic of speech production is expressed as differential use of variants, but the SpCom is
"defined on the level of interpretation; the obverse of heterogeneous speech production is
homogeneit y in the inter pretation of the variant s" (Ro maine 1 982 : 1 8) . Thu s unifor mity and
int er pretation are inseparable .
variation), in that order, as criteria for identifying a SpCom. While Romaine and others incorrectly
charged that in Labov's conception of uniformity, SpCom members "share rules of grammar in the
form of variable rules" (Ro maine 1 982 : 1 9) , the var table rule (Labov 1 96 9) is not hi s solution t o the
problem. (Romai ne her self ad mi t s it is peri pher al to the SpCo m: "t he thrus t of my argument i s against
the s pecific descri pt ive device , the variable rule ," (1 982 : 2 3); but the m isunder st anding persis t s , e . g .
Kerswill 1 994: 1 3 7.) Inst ead this is handled through the earlier invention of the linguistic variable
(Labov 1 966: 32ff) , a set of variant s which is s pecifiable inde pendent of any predict ability by linguistic
conditioning , and capable of crossing phonemic or morphemic lines. The normal heterogeneity
characteristic of speech production is expressed as differential use of variants, but the SpCom is
"defined on the level of interpretation; the obverse of heterogeneous speech production is
homogeneit y in the inter pretation of the variant s" (Ro maine 1 982 : 1 8) . Thu s unifor mity and
int er pretation are inseparable .
Subsequently, the
importance of linguistic uniformity for Labov is highlighted: matching the
complex
dis t ribut ion of sho rt- a in Philadelphia (Labov 1 9 89) is prima facie evidence for membership. But it is
the normative criterion that has vexed cri tics . Since many later consideratio ns focu s on the 1 96 3- 4
New Yor k Cit y st udy as t hough re present ative of cu rrent Labovian practice , discussion of his
co nt ribut ion to t he SpCo m is also concentrated here . It mu st be bor ne in mind, however , t hat what
Labov prescribed were analyt ical and int er pretive practices-not out co mes in t he sense that
su bsequent s peech co mmunities should resemble New York's .
dis t ribut ion of sho rt- a in Philadelphia (Labov 1 9 89) is prima facie evidence for membership. But it is
the normative criterion that has vexed cri tics . Since many later consideratio ns focu s on the 1 96 3- 4
New Yor k Cit y st udy as t hough re present ative of cu rrent Labovian practice , discussion of his
co nt ribut ion to t he SpCo m is also concentrated here . It mu st be bor ne in mind, however , t hat what
Labov prescribed were analyt ical and int er pretive practices-not out co mes in t he sense that
su bsequent s peech co mmunities should resemble New York's .
Labov's SpCom model
is the direct product of his survey of
the Lower East Side (LES) neighborhood
of
New York City. Here the SpCom definition was developed; from here it was generalized, by Labov and
others. This study's goal was "to investigate the structure of NYC English" (Labov 1 966: 1 1 0) .
Understand! ng the social distribut ion of linguistic forms , and exploring their social meaning-the
correlation and indexicality problems which constitute dominant interests in sociolinguistics today-
proved necessary, but subsidiary. Many later criticisms of the SpCom come from researchers primarily
concerned with these issues, especially indexing (e.g. Eckert), or even with no interest in linguistic
structure (e.g. Bucholtz).
New York City. Here the SpCom definition was developed; from here it was generalized, by Labov and
others. This study's goal was "to investigate the structure of NYC English" (Labov 1 966: 1 1 0) .
Understand! ng the social distribut ion of linguistic forms , and exploring their social meaning-the
correlation and indexicality problems which constitute dominant interests in sociolinguistics today-
proved necessary, but subsidiary. Many later criticisms of the SpCom come from researchers primarily
concerned with these issues, especially indexing (e.g. Eckert), or even with no interest in linguistic
structure (e.g. Bucholtz).
For Labov, the constituency of a SpCom must be discovered through the
research process. It is an
out come , no t an assum pt ion; a matter for observation , no t theory (Labov 1 994: 4- 5) . He breaks
cleanly wit h classic definit ions t hat endow a gr oup of s peakers wi th social coherence, warning
sociolinguis t s to "avoid any error which would arise in assuming that a group of people who speak
alike is a fundamental unit of social behavior" on the grounds that "asking about the language
charact eristics of a social g rou p . . . seems more fundament al and more closely tied to the genesis of
lingu istic differentiat ion" (Labov 1 966: 1 3 6 -7). This approach avoids cir cu larit y o n t he assum pt ion ,
shared with Hymes , that social unit s can be clearly ident ified on non- lingu istic criteria-a point
challenged explicit ly by Gu m perz , who considered t hat bot h social and Ii ngui st ic cat egories are
"signal|ed and su bject t o change in response t o simi lar for ces" , as ki ng "How can one set of categories
be used to establish an objective basis against which to evaluate the other?" (Labov 1 9 82 : 2 9) . It is
out come , no t an assum pt ion; a matter for observation , no t theory (Labov 1 994: 4- 5) . He breaks
cleanly wit h classic definit ions t hat endow a gr oup of s peakers wi th social coherence, warning
sociolinguis t s to "avoid any error which would arise in assuming that a group of people who speak
alike is a fundamental unit of social behavior" on the grounds that "asking about the language
charact eristics of a social g rou p . . . seems more fundament al and more closely tied to the genesis of
lingu istic differentiat ion" (Labov 1 966: 1 3 6 -7). This approach avoids cir cu larit y o n t he assum pt ion ,
shared with Hymes , that social unit s can be clearly ident ified on non- lingu istic criteria-a point
challenged explicit ly by Gu m perz , who considered t hat bot h social and Ii ngui st ic cat egories are
"signal|ed and su bject t o change in response t o simi lar for ces" , as ki ng "How can one set of categories
be used to establish an objective basis against which to evaluate the other?" (Labov 1 9 82 : 2 9) . It is
manipulated to constitute social identity.
Labov's met hod in
New Yor k was to delimit a sample first by applying social criteria, then by raising
issues of competence via acquisition patterns (excluding non-native speakers of English, and of NYC
English), and finally by analysis of linguistic structure (e.g. the ultimate separation of African-
American speakers on phonological grounds). The notion of community guiding the LES survey was
primarily defined not by interaction, shared norms, or social stratification, but residence. The LES was
selected because (1) the city's main social classes and ethnic groups were well represented; (2) it was
a focus for both social mobility and local loyalty; (3) as a former port of entry, the influence of
immigrant groups could be tested; and (4) residential structure was typical of the city and allowed for
interaction between social groups. There was no requirement of strong social bonds or coherence
(even hi s 1 989 definit ion begins "an aggregat e of s peakers": Labov 1 989: 2) . No lingui st ic criteria
were applied .
issues of competence via acquisition patterns (excluding non-native speakers of English, and of NYC
English), and finally by analysis of linguistic structure (e.g. the ultimate separation of African-
American speakers on phonological grounds). The notion of community guiding the LES survey was
primarily defined not by interaction, shared norms, or social stratification, but residence. The LES was
selected because (1) the city's main social classes and ethnic groups were well represented; (2) it was
a focus for both social mobility and local loyalty; (3) as a former port of entry, the influence of
immigrant groups could be tested; and (4) residential structure was typical of the city and allowed for
interaction between social groups. There was no requirement of strong social bonds or coherence
(even hi s 1 989 definit ion begins "an aggregat e of s peakers": Labov 1 989: 2) . No lingui st ic criteria
were applied .
As the emphasis was
on results of dialect acquisition,
convergence, focusing, and transmission,
interaction was important for the resulting system's nature. Yet Labov's interest was not in the
diversity of ways of speech produced by interaction within particular networks (like Gumperz), but
rather the consequent uniformity across a larger collectivity. New Yor k City turned out to show a
surprising degree of convergent behavior, reflected in Labov's statement: "NYC is a single speech
community, united by a common set of evaluative norms, though divergent in the application of these
nor ms" (Labov 1 966: 3 5 5 ; not e, however, t he las t clause) .
interaction was important for the resulting system's nature. Yet Labov's interest was not in the
diversity of ways of speech produced by interaction within particular networks (like Gumperz), but
rather the consequent uniformity across a larger collectivity. New Yor k City turned out to show a
surprising degree of convergent behavior, reflected in Labov's statement: "NYC is a single speech
community, united by a common set of evaluative norms, though divergent in the application of these
nor ms" (Labov 1 966: 3 5 5 ; not e, however, t he las t clause) .
This normative regularity is an
empirical finding. The claim rests
primarily on the evidence of
synchronic style-shifting patterns, supported by covert and overt measures of evaluative norms
(subjective reaction, self-evaluation, and linguistic-insecurity tests, plus language-attitude
interviews). Results recurred strikingly across social classes, the sexes, age, and ethnic groups;
irregularities were minor, largely mirroring changes in progress or contrasting changes of a different
age. The tests were conceived and interpreted in the light of a model of social stratification which has
been much criticized (discussed below). Only the subjective-reaction test implicated such a model in
its administration, however, and the overall convergence of Labov's findings has never been
challenged (Sant a Ana and Parodi 1 998) . The charact er of t his s pecific case under gi rds the general
defi nit ion of the SpCo m in his later synthesis:
synchronic style-shifting patterns, supported by covert and overt measures of evaluative norms
(subjective reaction, self-evaluation, and linguistic-insecurity tests, plus language-attitude
interviews). Results recurred strikingly across social classes, the sexes, age, and ethnic groups;
irregularities were minor, largely mirroring changes in progress or contrasting changes of a different
age. The tests were conceived and interpreted in the light of a model of social stratification which has
been much criticized (discussed below). Only the subjective-reaction test implicated such a model in
its administration, however, and the overall convergence of Labov's findings has never been
challenged (Sant a Ana and Parodi 1 998) . The charact er of t his s pecific case under gi rds the general
defi nit ion of the SpCo m in his later synthesis:
The speech community
is not defined by any marked agreement
in the use of language
elements, so much as 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.
elements, so much as 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.
(Labov 1 972 : 1 20-1 ).
Several points
require emphasis because of frequent misinterpretations. The norms are not
limited to
evaluation or ideology (contra Fasold 1 9 84: 1 4 8, Bucholtz 1 999: 2 0 8) bu t include quant itative
patt ems of production showing s tructu red variation. Generalizations abou t such norm s are thus not
merely inter pret ive st atement s filt ered t hrough t he analys t's preferred model of society. Labov's first
as sertion t hat "New Yor k for ms a single s peech community" occu rs (1 966: 2 02) before evaluative data
have even been introduced. Crucially, Labov's conception requires reference to a set of shared norms-
not deference or uniform adherence. He repeatedly describes departures from the overall patterns, by
individuals and subgroups, which do not falsify the existence of these norms. This is consistent with
the definition given above, allowing for "divergence in application."
evaluation or ideology (contra Fasold 1 9 84: 1 4 8, Bucholtz 1 999: 2 0 8) bu t include quant itative
patt ems of production showing s tructu red variation. Generalizations abou t such norm s are thus not
merely inter pret ive st atement s filt ered t hrough t he analys t's preferred model of society. Labov's first
as sertion t hat "New Yor k for ms a single s peech community" occu rs (1 966: 2 02) before evaluative data
have even been introduced. Crucially, Labov's conception requires reference to a set of shared norms-
not deference or uniform adherence. He repeatedly describes departures from the overall patterns, by
individuals and subgroups, which do not falsify the existence of these norms. This is consistent with
the definition given above, allowing for "divergence in application."
It has been charged that Labov's model specifies rigid allegiance to
sociolin-gutstic norms. Milroy
wonders, "Why should we suppose that individuals at different social levels make the same social
evaluations?" (1 982 : 46) . Kerswill sugges t s that "Labov's model . . . seem s bli ndly consensus-based and
does not allow for multiple norms" (1994: 27). Bucholtz refers to "the expectation of consensus in
speech community norms" as "the problem of homogeneity in the speech community model" (1999:
209), brashly conflating Labov's conception with that of Bloomfield and Hymes. Milroy and Milroy
attribute to Labov the claim that "every speaker agrees on the evaluation of the varying norms of
wonders, "Why should we suppose that individuals at different social levels make the same social
evaluations?" (1 982 : 46) . Kerswill sugges t s that "Labov's model . . . seem s bli ndly consensus-based and
does not allow for multiple norms" (1994: 27). Bucholtz refers to "the expectation of consensus in
speech community norms" as "the problem of homogeneity in the speech community model" (1999:
209), brashly conflating Labov's conception with that of Bloomfield and Hymes. Milroy and Milroy
attribute to Labov the claim that "every speaker agrees on the evaluation of the varying norms of
dif ficult to see how socially motivated linguistic change can take place"
(Milroy 1 982: 38) . The word
"consensu s" reverberates acros s t hese analyses , which unconsciously echo t he variat ionis t critique of
categorical st ruct urali st linguistics (Weinreich et al. 1968).
"consensu s" reverberates acros s t hese analyses , which unconsciously echo t he variat ionis t critique of
categorical st ruct urali st linguistics (Weinreich et al. 1968).
These criticisms,
however, fail to distinguish the analyst's view of social structure from
generalizations about dominant sociolinguistic patt ems of production and evaluat ion . (Labov (1 966)
clearly se parates them, and non-circularly orders the two.) Though framed as objections to the
SpCom model, they are actually objections to the "consensus" view of society the LES study adopted.
They also appear to suggest that surveys following Labovian methods lead, through expectations and
prejudgments, to predetermined results. Thus they not only make a mild, plausible claim-that the
consensual sociolinguistic patterns found in 1960's NYC are a narrow basis for a general SpCom
model-but a more serious one: that Labov's social-theory assumptions led to wrong conclusions
about NYC speech and generally render his model inadequate.
generalizations about dominant sociolinguistic patt ems of production and evaluat ion . (Labov (1 966)
clearly se parates them, and non-circularly orders the two.) Though framed as objections to the
SpCom model, they are actually objections to the "consensus" view of society the LES study adopted.
They also appear to suggest that surveys following Labovian methods lead, through expectations and
prejudgments, to predetermined results. Thus they not only make a mild, plausible claim-that the
consensual sociolinguistic patterns found in 1960's NYC are a narrow basis for a general SpCom
model-but a more serious one: that Labov's social-theory assumptions led to wrong conclusions
about NYC speech and generally render his model inadequate.
Yet no evidence for
exceptionless norms exists in the LES
survey itself. Labov repeatedly noted
divergence, both in production and evaluation. A striking individual example is Steve K, who
"consciously tr ied t o reverse hi s college- trained tendency t owards formal speech, and . . . deliberately
rejected the patt ern of values reflected" in t he s peech of ot her LES individual s (Labov 1 966: 80) .
Des pite this reject ion , Steve K was unable to significantly differentiate himself in test speech. The
method clearly does not preclude opposing values, then; in NYC they simply appeared to be
exceptional, or to have insignificant consequences for speech production. This underlies Labov's dual
stress on evaluative behavior and patterns of variation: attitude differences unaccompanied by speech
differences are epiphenomena.
divergence, both in production and evaluation. A striking individual example is Steve K, who
"consciously tr ied t o reverse hi s college- trained tendency t owards formal speech, and . . . deliberately
rejected the patt ern of values reflected" in t he s peech of ot her LES individual s (Labov 1 966: 80) .
Des pite this reject ion , Steve K was unable to significantly differentiate himself in test speech. The
method clearly does not preclude opposing values, then; in NYC they simply appeared to be
exceptional, or to have insignificant consequences for speech production. This underlies Labov's dual
stress on evaluative behavior and patterns of variation: attitude differences unaccompanied by speech
differences are epiphenomena.
When a significant
group of speakers differs on both levels, however, the model treats them as a
distinct speech community. This is the case of the African-Americans examined separately: "Negro
speakers share t he white att itudes towards correctness . . . [but] rever se whit e attit udes t owards the
cultural values of NYC s peech" (Labov 1 966: 3 5 2) . "The use of (eh) , (oh) , Cay) and (aw) by Negro
speakers is quite different than for whites" (1966: 370). Differences of class and age among black
speakers are noted, too, but overall they are consistently distinguished on many grounds from the
white ethnic groups, who pattern together. Again, Labov noted "the resistance of children to the
middle-class norm" (1966: 348), and argued that "many lower class subjects fall outside the influence
of the unifying nor ms . . . many seem to lac k the cultural values which maintain the working class
pattern of speech in opposition to massive pressure from above" (Labov 1 966: 3 51) .
distinct speech community. This is the case of the African-Americans examined separately: "Negro
speakers share t he white att itudes towards correctness . . . [but] rever se whit e attit udes t owards the
cultural values of NYC s peech" (Labov 1 966: 3 5 2) . "The use of (eh) , (oh) , Cay) and (aw) by Negro
speakers is quite different than for whites" (1966: 370). Differences of class and age among black
speakers are noted, too, but overall they are consistently distinguished on many grounds from the
white ethnic groups, who pattern together. Again, Labov noted "the resistance of children to the
middle-class norm" (1966: 348), and argued that "many lower class subjects fall outside the influence
of the unifying nor ms . . . many seem to lac k the cultural values which maintain the working class
pattern of speech in opposition to massive pressure from above" (Labov 1 966: 3 51) .
On close examination, it is clear that
this seminal study, like many subsequent ones influenced by it ,
recognized rather than suppres sed diverse patt ems of evaluation and product ion in t he com munit y
examined. The t hru s t of Labov's "unifying norm" was not t o paint , or prescribe, uniform ity, but t o
st ress t he pressu re of standard linguis t ic nor ms that were acce pted more t han resi st ed. It is t rue t hat
Labov does not formal ly raise the resis t ance observed to t he level of co mpeting nor ms and reify it in a
"conflict" model; neither is it obvious that this would be a correct analysis of his data. Finally, the
study identified several levels of generalization-local unity, patterns of divergence that nevertheless
refer to local norms, and shared acceptance of external norms by members of different SpComs
(blac k and whi te New Yor kers)- point ing to the need for a "nested" SpCom model.
recognized rather than suppres sed diverse patt ems of evaluation and product ion in t he com munit y
examined. The t hru s t of Labov's "unifying norm" was not t o paint , or prescribe, uniform ity, but t o
st ress t he pressu re of standard linguis t ic nor ms that were acce pted more t han resi st ed. It is t rue t hat
Labov does not formal ly raise the resis t ance observed to t he level of co mpeting nor ms and reify it in a
"conflict" model; neither is it obvious that this would be a correct analysis of his data. Finally, the
study identified several levels of generalization-local unity, patterns of divergence that nevertheless
refer to local norms, and shared acceptance of external norms by members of different SpComs
(blac k and whi te New Yor kers)- point ing to the need for a "nested" SpCom model.
3. The Speech Community and Models of
Society.
To the extent that
the normative organization of a SpCom is discovered through empirical research,
it
can clearly be distinguished from the socioeconomic structure of the society to which that SpCom
belongs. Standard procedure in sociolinguistic surveys requires consulting existing social science and
historical research to understand the makeup of a community and inform the use of social variables
as explanatory factors for language variation and change.
can clearly be distinguished from the socioeconomic structure of the society to which that SpCom
belongs. Standard procedure in sociolinguistic surveys requires consulting existing social science and
historical research to understand the makeup of a community and inform the use of social variables
as explanatory factors for language variation and change.
In this approach, analyses of social structure and linguistic behavior
must be kept separate so the
former may have explanatory value for the latter: "The nature of these [speech] norms, especially
whether they relate to standard, legitimized, and literate forms of language, is determined by larger
socioeconomic structures, in particular those based on power" (Ker swill 1 994: 2 7). As noted ,
Gumperz' challenge to t his result s in an opposed set of research concerns, called "interpretive
former may have explanatory value for the latter: "The nature of these [speech] norms, especially
whether they relate to standard, legitimized, and literate forms of language, is determined by larger
socioeconomic structures, in particular those based on power" (Ker swill 1 994: 2 7). As noted ,
Gumperz' challenge to t his result s in an opposed set of research concerns, called "interpretive
interprets it in terms of social meaning, rather than starting from social structure and
looking for
linguistic correlates" (1997: 31).
linguistic correlates" (1997: 31).
Recently it has been argued within the correlational
paradigm, as well, that the two levels cannot be
separated. To the Milroys, "Labov's key sociolinguistic notion of speech community seems to assume
a consensus model of social class whereby the community is fundamentally cohesive", while applying
such a model to the speakers they studied requires analyzing the Belfast vernacular "as an
unsuccessfu I ap pro ximat ion to educated . . . or standard English varlet ies" (Milroy and Milroy 1 998:
1 80-1) . Yet if "ver nacular maint enance can resu It in conf lict between two o p po si ng norms ," one
st andard and one low-prestige , then vernacu lar s peakers do not share a common set of (evaluative)
nor ms with standard speaker s: "The pattern arisi ng is . . . one of conf lict rather than consensus" (Milroy
and Milroy 1 997: 5 3) . (Here they fol low Ric kford 1 986 , who describes a Guyanese Creole-speaking
community where opposed sets of attitudes aligned with distinct patterns of variation.) They argue
that "a social class model based on conflict, division and inequality can account better than one based
on consensus for many patterns of language variation" (Milroy and Milroy 1 998: 1 81) .
separated. To the Milroys, "Labov's key sociolinguistic notion of speech community seems to assume
a consensus model of social class whereby the community is fundamentally cohesive", while applying
such a model to the speakers they studied requires analyzing the Belfast vernacular "as an
unsuccessfu I ap pro ximat ion to educated . . . or standard English varlet ies" (Milroy and Milroy 1 998:
1 80-1) . Yet if "ver nacular maint enance can resu It in conf lict between two o p po si ng norms ," one
st andard and one low-prestige , then vernacu lar s peakers do not share a common set of (evaluative)
nor ms with standard speaker s: "The pattern arisi ng is . . . one of conf lict rather than consensus" (Milroy
and Milroy 1 997: 5 3) . (Here they fol low Ric kford 1 986 , who describes a Guyanese Creole-speaking
community where opposed sets of attitudes aligned with distinct patterns of variation.) They argue
that "a social class model based on conflict, division and inequality can account better than one based
on consensus for many patterns of language variation" (Milroy and Milroy 1 998: 1 81) .
The latter point is persuasive; but the
isomorphy proposed for the two levels of social organization is
not . The type of evidence cited from Belfast to support the Milroy's view is also found in NYC, as
shown above, if to a different degree. Yet neither conflict nor consensus models can be preferred in
the abstract; as social analyses they are more or less applicable in specific situations. Choice is related
to scale factors: higher points on the population scale may be more heterogeneous and divided.
Delimitation of SpCom boundaries is also critical. In Dorian (1 981 ) , focu s on t he com pet ence of
Gaelic -s peaking fisherfol k alone lends itself t o a consensu s model, while including t he att itudes of
Engli sh monolinguals in the same villages might be better handled in a conflict approach. In NYC,
Labov's exclusion of certain native and immigrant groups is related to his concentration on the
linguistic system. The legitimacy of analytical choices thus depends upon selection of the research
question, in addition to the site.
not . The type of evidence cited from Belfast to support the Milroy's view is also found in NYC, as
shown above, if to a different degree. Yet neither conflict nor consensus models can be preferred in
the abstract; as social analyses they are more or less applicable in specific situations. Choice is related
to scale factors: higher points on the population scale may be more heterogeneous and divided.
Delimitation of SpCom boundaries is also critical. In Dorian (1 981 ) , focu s on t he com pet ence of
Gaelic -s peaking fisherfol k alone lends itself t o a consensu s model, while including t he att itudes of
Engli sh monolinguals in the same villages might be better handled in a conflict approach. In NYC,
Labov's exclusion of certain native and immigrant groups is related to his concentration on the
linguistic system. The legitimacy of analytical choices thus depends upon selection of the research
question, in addition to the site.
If such models are
intended to help elucidate
sociolinguistic patterns, they must be defined
independently. An approach should be adopted not based on the results of subjective evaluation or
matched-guise tests, but because broader patterns of social, economic, historical, and cultural
organization make it compelling. To contend that conflict models are generally preferable because of
sociolinguistic findings, and then use the former to interpret the latter, is circular. Further, the claim
that a social model binds the linguist to a particular view of t he varieties u nder s tudy-t hat u nder a
co nsensu s model, New Yor kers mu st fail in spea ki ng Standard Eng lish , while i n a conf lict model they
successful ly maintain a low- presti ge variety-is Sim ply fal se . It does not reflect usual practice among
sociolinguists, which is to recognize the hegemonic character of standard languages while
considering structurally distinct varieties to have their own integrity.
independently. An approach should be adopted not based on the results of subjective evaluation or
matched-guise tests, but because broader patterns of social, economic, historical, and cultural
organization make it compelling. To contend that conflict models are generally preferable because of
sociolinguistic findings, and then use the former to interpret the latter, is circular. Further, the claim
that a social model binds the linguist to a particular view of t he varieties u nder s tudy-t hat u nder a
co nsensu s model, New Yor kers mu st fail in spea ki ng Standard Eng lish , while i n a conf lict model they
successful ly maintain a low- presti ge variety-is Sim ply fal se . It does not reflect usual practice among
sociolinguists, which is to recognize the hegemonic character of standard languages while
considering structurally distinct varieties to have their own integrity.
The introduction of
conflict models has benefited
correlational studies in several ways. It draws
attention to the choices open to analysts and their impact. It raises the question: does recognition of
competing norms within a SpCom invalidate emphasis on overarching norms as a definitional
criterion? Undoubtedly, conflict models suit some social situations better (e.g. post-plantation
Caribbean societies wit h characteristically str ong racial and class ant agonis ms) . They are not
panaceas , however , t o be universally preferred . They carry no explanations with them-but there are
caveats. It is easily overlooked that in the absence of a broad societal consensus on values,
st ratificat ion may st ill be powerful. Conf lict analyst s (Ric kford 1 986 , Milroy and Milroy 1 998) typically
assig n op posed groups each t o a set of normat ive values , so that di scord occu rs between relatively
homogeneous fact ions . Rea|it y is often more co mplicated , wit h individuals holdi ng conflicting values ,
each ratified by society (Patrick 1 999) ; but individual agency i s not easily captured in theories derived
from Marx.
attention to the choices open to analysts and their impact. It raises the question: does recognition of
competing norms within a SpCom invalidate emphasis on overarching norms as a definitional
criterion? Undoubtedly, conflict models suit some social situations better (e.g. post-plantation
Caribbean societies wit h characteristically str ong racial and class ant agonis ms) . They are not
panaceas , however , t o be universally preferred . They carry no explanations with them-but there are
caveats. It is easily overlooked that in the absence of a broad societal consensus on values,
st ratificat ion may st ill be powerful. Conf lict analyst s (Ric kford 1 986 , Milroy and Milroy 1 998) typically
assig n op posed groups each t o a set of normat ive values , so that di scord occu rs between relatively
homogeneous fact ions . Rea|it y is often more co mplicated , wit h individuals holdi ng conflicting values ,
each ratified by society (Patrick 1 999) ; but individual agency i s not easily captured in theories derived
from Marx.
Finally, the connection between models of society and
characterizations of the SpCom is not
trans parent , des pite claims in the
literat ure . Inter pret ing SpCo m models prim arily through the lens of
social class is unnecessarily restrictive. Whether one privileges structural uniformity and stresses the
social class is unnecessarily restrictive. Whether one privileges structural uniformity and stresses the
institu-tionalization of power in shared
attitudes towards a standard (regarding dissent as minimal
and covert)-or privileges acts of identity and focuses on speaker agency in social positioning through
linguistic choice, celebrating diverse attitudes-are to some extent predilections of the analyst that do.
and covert)-or privileges acts of identity and focuses on speaker agency in social positioning through
linguistic choice, celebrating diverse attitudes-are to some extent predilections of the analyst that do.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario