Language Differences between Older and Younger People - Essay Example

Language Differences between Older and Younger People Language can be a major barrier to communication especially between the young and older members of the society. This is particularly when young and old people use words that can be perceived as jargon or acronyms unfamiliar to the message recipient. The intention of language is to serve as a means of communication where the audience has to get the message as intended by the speaker. For these reason, the speaker should consider the differences in the level of education (knowledge and understanding by the recipient. The young people are better performers than the older people and this is attributed to the fact that they response time is quite short compared to the old in whom cognitive process is slowed. The slowing brings about matched behaviour (slowed response). The cognitive process is critical in communication and is the major determining factor of complete communication process. There are distinct differences in the way young people talk and pass information compared to the old and this is determined by the way of socialization and interactions. Young people adopt communication means that are very convenient with their interaction level and the social changes around them like communication and so on while older people tend to like more official form of language communication. Young people communicate informally with the use of corrupted language version like slung, unfamiliar acronyms and jargon words. Introduction Social interaction is the major element that brings about the machinery to spread the use of sound and change in language outward and upward through the social ladder. For better understanding of the linguistic features, a phonological variation in the current society has to be done (Milroy et al 2003). Over the past 15- 20 years, data has revealed that there is a wider range of factors that determine the phonological changes in the society. The interpretation of these variations has led linguists to shift from the normal demographic correlations focused on investigation technique to participant observation in smaller factions and networks to reveal the social incentive for the type of linguistic emulation that lead to the spread of variation through populations, Chambers (2002). Normally observed population and other demographic patterns, the phonological variation shows that there is a spread between and via the society structure and communication networks. Phonological changes can begin anywhere; however those that spread far and wide usually originate from the urban areas and are common among the young than the older people. Recent research in linguistic studies indicates that sound change just like other innovations spreads through a network of influence and progressively, Edwards (1993). Literature Review The Social Structure The social structure is the major contributor to the changes and spread of language variations. Social studies reveal that the normal socio-economic stratification of the phonological variables in the society changes as people rise from working class through the social hierarchy, Chambers (1995). The extent of phonological variation is further indicated in the age difference within the society (young and old) have a considerable increase of innovative types down the age continuum. In the age bracket, there is some discontinuation as the middle aged speakers show greater stylish range than the old and young people and so doing, they reveal a conservative speech in official manner compared to the old and young, they at times even show more innovative speeches in casual manner than the young people(Milroy et al 2003). Age discontinuity is difficult to reveal between the adolescents and pre-adolescents. Data from previous research studies; moth age graded information particularly about the demographic groups under the age of 21 are grouped together making it almost impossible to evaluate the differences among the finer groups of pre-adults, Edwards (1993). The collective data indicate a gradual continuum through the age group, since it quite evident hat the young people )adolescent and young adults acquire the dialect from their peers rather than parents, its logical to assume that the socio economic behaviour of the surrounding people especially in childhood peer groups are responsible for the pre-adult linguistic style, Chambers (1995). There are occasions when the sound changes as a result of active social process, the assumption here is that the individual pre adult would present variations based on their peer groups and not on the neighbourhood groups. The older generation present a totally different sound or dialect since as the normal societal growth takes place, the young adults move out of the neighbourhood to different socioeconomic character hence it's an obvious expectation that there would be conflict in identity with those of their parents calling for adjustments, Chambers (2002). This brings about the formal language presentation as seen in many middle aged people. The social mobility enables the passage from adolescents to adulthood. Methods Collection of data is very important in any study in research work. The method of choice should be very precise so that analysis of data collected can be done efficiently without missing out on any critical information. The information was collected first hand from the speakers from the fieldwork surveys, Chambers (2002). The method selected was based on the time consuming and fraught difficulty reduction possibility. Since such research undertaking is very expensive and time is so precious, the study was designed to cut down costs by reducing the time for study. The method addresses the following issues; method of entry into the community to obtain the information from the members directly; methods of finding the appropriate people to study; convincing them to be part of the research as well as being recorded; reducing any disruptions that may be caused by data collection procedures; and how to re-compensate the society for the co-operation. All the informants and interviewers were trained on handling the information, the participants, and other data collection processes. To eliminate observer paradox and sign consent forms (Labov 1994). The safety of the respondents was taken into consideration by keeping any personal information secret. The method of study was done to analyze the following variations; lexis, morphology, phonology and syntax. The conversational methods were also recorded during data collection. Direct elicitation is one of the methods used to obtain the data; it was designed to be restrained and to circumvent researcher paradox particularly the effects of simulation (Labov 1994). Interviews were carried out in a most natural possible way, giving private information is very risky and caution was taken since it would be against ethics to use or record information from a respondent without their consent. Participants were selected on the basis that they present informed consent and the privacy of the information they gave was assured. The data collected was quantified in numerical so as enable visualization, analysis and evaluation. Mathematical applications were very necessary; clustering, computer based programs. Linguists and dialectologist were used to study the feature of language, speech that was reasonably grouped. The best method for data analysis recommended for use in sociolinguistic, language studies, discourse and other aspects of language is by the use of David Sankoff's VARBRUL computer programs (Milroy et al 2003). Results and Discussions There are several aspects that were measured during the study of language differences between the old and the old. Sex, social class are some of the factors that influenced the variation of language. However linguistic identity conformed to generational model, the older people appeared to make reserved use of particles and adopted a formal manner of verbal communication, the young speaker were inclined towards the use of strong language. It was ascertained that the use or non use of particular particles, the narrators could adapt to situation and their role in the dialogue emerged as very formal, friendly and deferent. The language and speech as presented in the young peoples dialogue seemed to be tending towards informal mode of communication with little sense of politeness (this was described as a kind of democratization; language of solidarity however deferent, affectionate yet hedged). Moving along the age continuum, it was quite evident that the use of formal speech increased. Figure 1: Relationship between Formal Speech, Age and Other Linguistic Aspects. Grammaticalisation Semantic bleaching Diachronic {lexical item conjunction adverb pragmatic element {Propositional written meaningful identity marker Synchrony Diaphasic frozen/formal informal diastratic (age) older younger We can attribute the changes in the distributional use of respectful words. The following factors were the main factors of the change; Metonymic concomitance, change in society, Wheeler's 'positive feedback loop' (informal can shift to become formal, as the meaning is subjective) Semantic bleaching, and "Face redress" which is a dominant functional force on any linguistic system." The age related variable in the study of sociolinguistic reflects the age grading or change in procedure. Age grading is characterized by developmental and social stage in a given age group. For instance, the utterance of two words among sixteen months old children like "Mommy Please" or the use of slang among young adults in their affiliation groups ("cool"." "She is hot") among others. Language and speech changes as they grow older since they give up some feature associated with certain age groups. The change process in age is the most significant of com unity norms in language, Eckert (2000). Change in real time is important in language studies, it gives differences in two speakers as in American speakers at the age of 18 years or younger omitted the verb (goes or be concerned) compared to the older speaker aged above 60 years. An analysis of speech include the following aspects; Participants - (Addressor, Addressee, Audience); Form - (dialect, variety, register) (Wolfram 1997); Ends- (reason of event, objective of participants); Key- (tease versus serious, perfunctory versus painstaking); and Form- (dialect, register etc). Dialect is spoken language depending on who you are that is where you were born or where you live, your age etc (Wolfram 1997).; Register is the information you are giving depending on what you are doing, that is the exact doings and context; Genre- poems, lecture, proverbs and advertisement); Norms- (no break -up, no extending beyond in conversation, respond to questions), Eckert (2000). Table 1. Analysis of speech components SITUATION Setting scene Physical situations Psychological setting; subjective definition of occasion PARTICPANTS Speaker, sender, addresser, Purpose of communication from cultural point of view ENDS Hearer, receiver, addressee, audience ACT SEQUENCE Message form and content KEY Tone and manner INSTRUMENTALITIES Channel and form Verbal, non-verbal, physical, variety of language NORMS Of interaction Of interpretation GENRE Textual categories It has been found that, adolescence is the transitional stage from childhood to adulthood accompanied by significant language development and changes. Previous studies indicated that the usage of certain variables reduced from ages 10 t0 12 and from ages 14 to 17 then eventually to adults (Wolfram 1997). The linguistic variables under study were related to several spoken English and local dialect. The English spoken by young people United Kingdom and neighbourhoods was different from that spoken by Americans with the local dialect giving so much influence. For instance the use of variable , in which the variant enclosed ' ([:]) was found in both neighbourhood dialect and standard English (UK) such variable are not age restricted rather determined by the geographical orientation of different groups (Wolfram 1997).. The linguistic pressure as seen in the use of standard form of innovation i9s directly connected to the orientation towards both young age and standard language. The distribution patterns of the linguistic variation shifts from the town centres to the rural areas. In relation to the phonological variables, the chances of language innovation was higher in urban centres as discovered by the informants with a gradually slant from the urban areas to the periphery. Lexical variable displayed some inconsistent distribution especially the use of type ([tY: p], 'like'). Another variable is marker nna ([n:a], 'like') as displayed from traditional language discourse (Wolfram 1997). The changes in phonological and lexical especially confined in a certain area is described as regionalization. There are some other variables that did not change with age and were used in the study - sex and geographical location and lifestyle are the main players. The study revealed interdependence in the variation aspects of language. Gender differences and lifestyle analysis revealed that there was a difference in the way boys and girls way of speech. The lifestyle analysis gave the extra personal information that was necessary to determining linguistic variation (Bell 1997 Variation Analysis This is the combination of the linguistic techniques, statistics and anthropology to study language changes, for instance a six year old girl answers her mother 'I don't know nothing about that!' a young adult asks 'you got a big family' so on and so forth. All these utterances are part of dialect that can be termed as mistakes in language, slang or performance errors. The undertaking of a linguistic is to establish the characteristics of natural language (Milroy 1997). The study of individual language is conducted to determine why the whole set of languages are the way they are. It can be described as the investigation of theory of universal grammar where the researcher intents to device means of specifying grammatical strings of a certain language however the device should be applicable to grammar of another language. In the sociolinguistic perspective, language is perceived to exist in context depending on the speaker and depending on where it is applied and why it is being used. A speaker marks the personal history and identifies the dialogue plus the economical, socio-cultural, and geographical orientations in time and space. Language should be studied in relation to social interactions since we cannot assume language X as in itself is a social perception defined by those who speak it and secondly any dialogue or speech ahs a social function mainly as a means of information transfer and exchange and as a means of identification with social groups(Bell 1997). There are different ways in which social structure; socio-economical aspects interact with language. Since culture is so diverse, it therefore implies that languages are as diverse as the cultures are. Those who specialize in studying variations in languages are called variationist sociolinguistics. The supporting feature of these approaches is the fact that it could accommodate the paradoxes of language changes since most theories had predetermined language as a set of rigid rules and structure or principles yet the same language transforms continually, so the structure should be flexible(Feagin 2002). Unluckily, this is a very expensive field of study and usually faces obstacles like social class, sex, lifestyles, geography and even systems of governance. In an attempt to understand the internal and external characteristics of the language, challenge is inevitable as the researchers own predilections would come to effect (Bell 1997). The understanding of language is so fluid that the combination of linguistic or social aspects, no matter how well analyzed, and cannot account for the good regularities as experienced in empirical studies in language behaviour studies. The duality of focus is discussed as- one of the appeals versus one of the challenges of linguistic studies; it addresses the problems of natural language, focussing one way at the organization of linguistic types while instantaneously gazing the other means at their social meaning (Chambers et al 2002). Sociolinguistics is the most explicit study of language as described by many researchers and language specialists who argue that it manages to take in to account the grammar, social meaning and systemic factors. (Chambers et al 2002) It can be said that rather than asking individual 'how do you pronounce X' the researcher will ask you to talk about some other story and listen to the X sounds made. The fundamental nature of sociolinguistic study relies of three facts about language; 1. orderly heterogeneity 2. perpetual change in language 3. complex meaning of language beyond words Orderly heterogeneity implies that there are several ways to communicate the same message (Mesthrie et al. 2000). The changes could be viewed across the entire language like English or French. The changes in these cases are made by the speaker's choice of bilingual or multilingual aspect of communication. The change in language is a continuous process as seen in daily dialects for instance the use of the word 'not', initially it used to be placed after a verb as in I know not however in the current days, it is placed after the verb followed by a supporting word as in I don't know nothing in the contemporary English (Feagin 2002).. Variation analysts objective is to put linguistic aspects like these in the context of where each has come from and where it is going. As a social identity, language enables exchange of information between people though at time the speaker can use it to make utterances about who she/he is, her/his perceptions etc. the main characteristics of variations that are portrayed in the variations of language (Mesthrie et al. 2000).; vernacular has several definitions the common being that it is the style in which the lowest attention is given to examine speech process or the daily ways of speech. The use of vernacular is very important since it is considered the most systematic form of speech being the variety that was learnt first. Speech in community require that the sociolinguistic goes to the community in person as a observer and participant so as to get the information first hand by recording the language in the social cultural set up (Bell 1997). Form and function is the probability of multiple forms for the same purpose, some analysts argue that different forms cannot carry out the same function however in sociolinguistic variation analysis; different forms can serve the same purpose. Lastly, linguistic variables as in grammar, style, dialect and register of language in every speaker there is some variation aspect (Chambers et al 2002). Conclusion Language is considered to be arbitrary and the meaning is not that rigid. Many linguists currently adopt the fluid nature of language since it has been changing all along despite the rigid rules and language structure that used to apply. The meaning of any phrase or dialect usually depend on the context described in terms of when and where it is used. The social interaction affected the use of language and as studied earlier age is a major player in this aspect. The younger generation usually adopt a way of dialect suitable for them comprising of acronyms and phrases or initials that are only known to them otherwise will be jargon to an adult. The social aspects have shaped the language variation in a way that as the social interaction increases due to activities like schooling and going to work, changes are adopted in the language bringing about changes to the way an individual used to speak. Many young people tend to start formalizing their ways of speech as they grow into adulthood hence adolescence is considered a transition stage to maturity. References Bell A (1997) Language style as audience design. In Nicolas C. & Adam J. (Eds). Sociolinguistics. A reader, pp240-50. Chambers J.K Trudgill P & Natalie (Eds) (2002) the Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Blackwell p120 v 37 Chambers J. K. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory. Oxford. Blackwell Chambers J.K. (2002). Studying language variation. An informal epistemology. In Chambers, Trudgill & Schilling-Estes ((Eds)). HLVC, 3-12. Eckert P (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Oxford. Blackwell. P120.V37 Eck Edwards J. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In Edwards J& Lampert M ((eds)). Talking data. Transcription and coding in discourse research: 3-31. p226 Feagin C. (2002). Entering the community. Fieldwork. In Chambers, Trudgill & Schilling-Estes, (eds). HLVC, pp 20-39. Labov W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Internal factors. Basil Vol.1 Blackwell. pp142 Lab Mesthrie R et al. (2000). Introducing Sociolinguistics Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press Milroy, Lesley & Matt G (2003) Sociolinmgistics. Method and Interpretation. Blackewell. p 40 Mil Milroy J. (1997). Varieties and variation. In Coulmas F (ed). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, pp 47-64. Blackwell. Wolfram W. (1997). Dialect in society. In Coulmas F. (ed). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. pp 107-126. Blackwell. Read More