Who We Are, Where We Come From - Assignment Example

Who We Are, Where We Come From In reviewing the Holmes’ statement regarding the relationship of speech to social experiences, it is imperative to review sociolinguist theory pertaining to the correlation between language and society. Leading sociolinguist theorist Holmes highlights how sociolinguist theory focuses on the social functions of language. To this end, Holmes sociolinguist model suggests that how people utilise language in different social contexts is inherently related to the social relationships in community and cultural social identity (Holmes, 2008:1). In further supporting this proposition, Holmes provides the following example to highlight the importance of language in providing clues to individual development and social experiences: “Example 1: Ray: Hi mum Mum: Hi. You’re late Ray: Yeah, that bastard Sootbucket kept us in again. Mum: Nana’s here Ray: Oh Sorry. Where is she?” (Holmes, 2008:1). This example highlights how Ray would not have referred to his teacher using derogatory terminology and expletives if he was aware that his grandmother was listening which supports the importance of social context in influencing language usage. The focus of this paper is to critically evaluate the Holmes’ submission that “our speech provides clues to others about who we are, where we come from, and perhaps what kind of social experiences we have had (Holmes, 2008:1). To this end, this paper will consider sociolinguistic theory with specific reference to Holmes’ work with comparative analysis of other sociolinguists. In essence, sociolinguistics embodies the correlation between language usage and context and if we further consider Holmes’ example above; not only does the language highlight social context, Ray’s reaction to his grandmother’s presence demonstrates the multifarious functions of language (Holmes, 2008:2). For example, Ray’s embarrassment at use of expletives in front of his grandmother depicts the negative connotation associated to certain words and the extent to which such use is socially acceptable. For example, whilst Ray can swear in front of his mother, he cannot in front of his grandmother (Holmes, 2008:2). Moreover, the actual choice of words highlights Ray’s anger with his teacher and feelings. To this end, Holmes further argues that “we also indicate aspects of our social identity through the way we talk. Our speech provides clues to others about who we are, where we come from and perhaps the kind of social experiences we have had” (Holmes, 2008:2). This is further evidenced by the inherent nuances of language, which provide various modes of expressing the same point, for example “addressing and greeting others, describing things, paying compliments” (Holmes, 2008:2). This is in turn can represent cultural background as Holmes refers to the example of “sut wyt ti (how are you)” as evidence of a Welsh Greeting (Holmes, 2008:3). To this end, not only does the use and choice of language in speech address social context and provide indications of the relationship between the individuals engaged in conversation, it further provides an important key in highlighting the socio-cultural identity. Moreover, the elucidation of social context is evidenced by the manner in which a point is expressed in speech. Indeed, if we refer to another sociolinguistic example of Holmes, she seeks to highlight how language usage provides key insights into social influences used in language choice (Holmes, 2008:3). For example: “Sam: You seen our ‘enry’s new ‘ouse yet? It’s in ‘alton you know. Jim: I have indeed. I could hardly miss it Sam. Your Henry now owns the biggest house in Halton” (Holmes, 2008:3). Therefore, not only does language clearly highlight social background in terms of relationship and feelings; the word usage in speech is imperative to understanding social influences (Holmes, 2008:4). Moreover, Holmes argues that “linguistic variation occurs at other levels of linguistic analysis too: sounds, word-structure (or morphology), and grammar (or syntax) as well as vocabulary. Within each of these linguistic levels there is variation which offers the speaker a choice of ways of expression” (Holmes, 2008: 4). This proposition is further supported by consideration of syntax, pronunciation and choice of words. Moreover, the influence of social background on language is further highlighted by reference to other cultures and languages. For example, Holmes makes the point that socio-cultural norms in a language will inform word usage and syntax. This argument is further supported if we consider by analogy academic arguments pertaining to appropriate adoption of translation theory. For example, Indeed, Hatim and Munday assert that “the potential field and issues covered by translation are vast and complex” as a result of the variances within the same language (Hatim & Munday, 2004: 4). Furthermore, the potential problems facing translators are compounded by the fact that there can be variances within the same language and Hatim & Munday refer to the example of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter children’s books, which have been translated into “over 40 languages and have sold millions of copies worldwide. It is interesting that a separate edition is published in the USA with some alterations. The first book in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, appeared as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s stone in the USA….. as well as the title there were other lexical changes… The American edition makes a few alterations of grammar and syntax” (Hatim & Munday, 2004: 5). If we consider this contextually from the perspective of socio-linguistics, Holmes refers to the linguistic varieties used in within languages and regional areas and that interaction is dependent on social dialectic norms (Holmes, 2008:7). To this end, Holmes asserts that “these examples illustrate the range of linguistic variation which can be observed in different speech communities” (Holmes, 2008:7). Moreover, these “speech communities” are further divided into various social “codes” applicable to certain social contexts and as a result, “the members of each community have their distinctive linguistic repertoires” (Holmes, 2008:7). This will further be reflected in the structure of the language itself. For example, many Asian languages have specific “subordination” terms in referring to relatives to demonstrate respect. To this end, Lakoff and Ide comment that when compared with English, Thai and Japanese share a number of characteristics with other East Asian Languages…… Thai is said to lack inflectional endings for number, person, and tense in the verb stems, but has extensive derivative compounding, the use of numerical classifiers, sentence final particles…. And in addition sociolinguistic factors are explicitly marked” (Lakoff & Ide, 2008:50). They further posit that person reference terms in East Asian languages are far more complex than European languages with the “multi self-reference and addressee-reference terms are marked for the sex of the speaker – and the relationship of the speaker and the hearer” (Lakoff & Ide, 2008:50). Therefore the intrinsic variances in language structure and referencing informs language usage and further support the sociolinguist argument that social context and background is represented by choice of words in speech. Moreover, from a sociolinguistic perspective, Holmes postulates that “on the whole people acquire their knowledge of varieties and how to use them appropriately in the same way that they acquire their knowledge of most other aspects of language - by extensive exposure and a process of osmosis” (Holmes, 2008:8). Appurtenant to this is the social context, which not only serves to explain the variety of word choice used; it can serve to represent socio-cultural phenomenon particularly with regard to youth perspectives. This has become more apparent in the digital age, as the creation of multi-faceted digital space has seen a significant uptake by youth on a global scale, thereby perpetuating a domino effect on culture, sub-cultures and social behaviour through changing communication trends with social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Bebo on the other (Cross, 2004: 3). Moreover, this directly correlates to fact that 70-90% of teenagers have access to the Internet at home, which clearly impacts social interaction. . For example, the diversity of social spaces through networks such as Facebook, internet chat rooms and MySpace not only changes the way in which teenagers interact, it provides a backdrop for a multitude of complex interrelated factors, which are difficult to monitor (Barabasi, 2003: 10). Furthermore, the prolific transformation of the Internet into a commercial model and consumer orientated medium has further created gaps in the youth culture and the contemporary construction of youth culture and how young people utilise online information streams and web based services. However, the literature review reveals that the central focus when considering the impact of the internet in particular on youth has focused on threats such as cyber bullying, crime and paedophilia, with little attention being given to online game playing, entertainment and social networking. It is submitted that these trends shape youth culture and language usage, which further supports Holmes’ arguments regarding the influence of social context and social background on language usage (Firth, 2007: 15). Moreover, research from as early as 1998 indicates that this aspect of the Internet is central role in the constructions of contemporary youth culture (Bennett & Harris, 2004:47). Bennett and Harris further posit that the role and impact of technology in youth culture has created polarised theories such as postmodernism on the one hand to the cultural studies approach on the other (Bennett & Harris, 2004: 78). The post modern rationale opines that youth is shaped by cultural norms and is interrelated to Graddol’s three models of translation regarding the fragmentation of language (Graddol & Barrett). This in turn shapes the concept of “age identity”, and in context of the Internet model, Wallace et al propound that “the age status becoming de-standardised and eroded” (Wallace et al, 1998: 41). Moreover, Wallace et al argue that “young people have taken advantage of new communications technologies as they have become available to create and communicate their sub cultures (Wallace et al, 1998: 42). Indeed, Tapcott posited in 1998 that the current young generation s “the first to grow up surrounded by digital media” the ramifications of which are starting to filter through into contemporary societal culture (Tapcott, 1998; Bennett & Harris 2004: 118). If we consider by contextually the internet usage in America; a leading study undertaken by the Pew Internet &American Life Project in 2008 (“the Report”) highlighted that more than half of all online American youths between 12-17 use an online social networking site (www.pewinternet.org). The survey also found that the older teen girls in particular like to use these sites to reinforce existing relationships and flirt with boys. The Report highlights the explosive growth of these sites as a contemporary social phenomenon, which in turn has generated parental concern about risks regarding the public availability of information (www.pewinternet.org). It is evident from the report that MySpace dominated the social networking world and whilst Facebook is increasingly popular across the ages, MySpace remains culturally important as a means for independent social networking (www.pewinternet.org). Additionally, it is submitted more than merely offering vast information and entertainment to audiences, the new media format provides youths a self identity, a sense of individuality and a way to think differently from the others (Cross, 2004: 20). With the new media today, youths thinking and attitudes towards life may be manoeuvred in one way or another given these factors, it can be seen that the new media are relatively important in the lives of young people (Livingstone, 2002: 107). With this new media age, the sociability factor is clearly changing dynamics through patterns of behaviour, modes of accessing information and entertainment as well as ways of seeing the world and interacting with one another have changed (Abbot, 1998). Indeed, Anderson and Miles expressly refer to the fact that through new media, the impact on youth is “selling young people an element of identity” (Anderson and Miles, 1999: 108). Moreover, many of the social networking sites see the creation of new language colloquialisms and effectively novel “social dialects” (Holmes, 2008:123). This in turn supports Holmes’ assertion that “people often use a language to signal their membership of particular groups. Social status, gender, age, ethnicity, and the kinds of social networks people belong to turn out to be important dimensions of identity in many communities”(Holmes, 2008: 123). For example, in the social networking phenomenon, in addition to the creation of “new social dialects”, the interaction is inherently colloquial due to the research indicating that usage of social networking is overwhelmingly for personal and leisure reasons. This contrasts to the language in the following example proposed by Holmes: “Telephone rings, Pat: Hello Caller: Hello is Mark there? Pat: Yes. Just hold on a minute. Pat to Mark: There’s a rather well-educated lady from Scotland on the phone for you” (Holmes, 2008:123). This reiterates the sociolinguistic argument that language usage will provide significant information about characteristics of the speaker, such as accent and socio-economic background, as highlighted by Pat’s description of the caller (Holmes, 2008:123). Moreover, the reference in the above example to accent whilst in general terms referred to Scotland, didn’t address the fact that the same language will have regional differences in execution and therefore “speech provides social information too…..we signal our group affiliations by the speech forms we use” (Holmes, 2008:123). Accordingly, the above analysis clearly supports Holmes’ proposition regarding the interrelationship between social context and language. However, from a theoretical perspective, Graddol highlights the point that “it is always been something of an embarrassment to language scholars that the definition of their object of study is itself a major part of intellectual dispute” (1994:1). This assertion is made on grounds that whilst it is acknowledged that language is complex and an “important part of our individual identity and private experience, yet it also seems to exist “out there” as a public entity” (Graddol, 1994:1). As such, whilst acknowledging Holmes’ argument regarding the use of language and social identity, Graddol’s arguments go further in attempting to propound three models for comprehending the nature of language (Graddol, 1994:1). The first approach focuses on the substantive nature of the language. The second model refers to the understanding of language in social context and the third model is the post modern approach, which seeks to “understand the fragmentary flux of language not by idealising simple underlying mechanisms but by attempting to tease apart and understand the nature of the fragmentation” (Graddol, 1994:1). To this end the third model goes further than the social context theory by conceptualising language and how it “conceives society and individual identity” (Graddol, 1994:1). This arguably correlates to Holmes’ propositions regarding social context and language, as in considering the nuances of language construction, social dialects, cultural differences and novel social modes, Holmes’ sociolinguistic model would appear to fall in line with Graddol’s third model, which acknowledges that “language …. Is always diverse and unstable in structure, it is not clear where the boundaries of language and other forms of communication lie” (1994:2). Moreover, in developing the third model, Graddol highlights the point that post modernism demonstrates the constant evolution of complex cultural phenomena that shape social constructs as highlighted by social networking, which creates novel forms of linguistic interaction. As such, Graddol argues that “human identity in post modern theory is also seen as diverse, inconsistent and unstable” (Graddol, 1994:2). Therefore, it is submitted that the post modern influences in culture as exemplified by the social networking phenomenon support the continued relevance of the third sociolinguist language model proposed by Graddol. This in turn, underlines the inherent complexity of language and that Holmes’ extrapolation of the fragmentation of language usage in terms of context, dialect, culture and relationships highlights the importance of the interrelationship between social context and language. Bibliography Abbott, C. (1998). Making Connections: Young People and the Internet. In Sefton-Green, J. (ed) Digital Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia, pp. 84-105 UCL Press Anderson, A. & Miles, S. (1999). Just Do It. Young People, the Global Media and the Construction of Consumer Meanings. In Youth and Global Media, Ralph, S. (ed), Luton: University of Luton Press. Barr, T. (2000), Newmedia.com.au: The Changing Face of Australia’s Media and Communications, Australia: Allen & Unwin Barabasi, A. (2003). Linked: How everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means. Barett, N., Newbold, C., & Van-Den-Bulck, H. (2002). The Media Book. Arnold Benett, A. & Harris, K. (2004). After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. Palgrave Macmillan Briggs, A., & Burke, P. (2005). A Social History of the Media. Polity Cohen, P. (1997). Rethinking the Youth Question: Education Labour and Cultural Studies. London: Macmillan Cross, R. (2004). The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done. Harvard Business School Press. Davies, A. & Elder, C. (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Wiley Blackwell Ewen, J. (1983). Youth in Australia – A New Deal and a New Role: Phillip Institute of Technology Frith, S. (1993). Youth/Music/Television in Sound and Vision: The Music Reader, Frith, S., Goodwin, A. & Grossberg, L. (Eds,) London: Routledge Graddol, D. & Barrett, O. (1994) Media Texts: Authors and Readers. Multilingual Matters Publishing. Hatim, Basil & Jeremy Munday (2004). Translation: an advanced resource book. Routledge. Holmes, J. (2008). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Pearson Publication. Howard, S. (ed. 1998) Wired Up: Young People and the electronic Media: London UCL Press Kline, F. & Clarke, P. (Eds) (1971) Mass Communications and Youth: Some Current Perspectives, London: Sage Lakoff, R. T., & Ide, S. (2005). Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. John Benjamins Publishing Livingstone, S. (2002). Young People and New Media, London: Sage Pavlik, J. V. (1998) New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives, Boston: Allyn & Bacon Tapcott, D. (1998). Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation: New York McGraw-Hill Wallace, C. & Kovatcheva (1998) Youth in Society: The Construction and Deconstruction of Youth in East and West Europe. London Macmillan Websites www.pewinternet.org Read More