5

Microsociolinguistics

By microsociolinguistics is meant the study of the relations between linguistic and social structures at the level of face to face interaction. At this level we are observing the linguistic and nonlinguistic behavior of individuals, rather than of categories, groups, or aggregates of people, as in macrosociolinguistics. The two levels of analysis are, of course, intimately related, and a prime task of the sociolinguist is to establish connections between the two.
According to Ervin-Tripp (1971b:16), microsociolinguistics includes “studies of the components of face-to-face interaction as they bear on, or are affected by, the formal structure of speech. These components may include the personnel, the situation, the function of the interaction, the topic, and the message and the channel.” Unlike studies in “communication,” microsociolinguistics in concerned with relating characteristics of the language of language variety to characteristics of the communicators or the communication situation. As sociolinguistic rules have been characterized in the literature, they are micro sociolinguistic. It seems anomalous to speak of macro sociolinguistic rules. These are not part of the native speaker’s competence, but rather are perhaps only large-scale empirical generalizations or “laws”.
There are a number of viewpoints in the field converging on the notion that social and linguistic phenomena are of the same order. If this is the case, and much research appears to be based upon this assumption, then the same linguistic data can be used to analyze both linguistic form and social categories. Thus, rather than trying to correlate linguistic form with social information collected elsewhere, we can consider the linguistic forms actually chosen as simply a realization of the social meanings and categories.
There is a particularly intimate relationship between the study of social interaction and the study of language in use. The study of social interaction in sociology has been dominated by a school of thought known as symbolic interactionism. This particular theoretical perspective emphasizes the notion that, when people interact with each other, they are reacting to the meaning (to them) of others’ behavior, rather than to what they are actually doing-that is, all behavior is interpreted symbolically. People react more to symbols than to acts or thins. Man lives in a world of symbols, he interprets his physical and social world in terms of symbols. Many, perhaps most of the symbols with which people have surrounded themselves are linguistic symbols or at least have direct linguistic representation. The study of people’s reaction to such symbols is particularly instructive. Witness the phenomenon of violence as a reaction to the hurling of a racial epithet, the avoidance of words referring to death; or the fact that the more uttering of one of the most frequently used words in the English language, fuck, has gotten people arrested or shot. Formerly books were confiscated by postal and custom officials if they contained the word; it does not even appear in most contemporary English dictionaries.
One obvious area where the study of language and the study of social interaction overlap is the analysis of conversation, perhaps the most pervasive and ubiquitous of all human activities. In conversational analysis, we are interested not only in what people are saying and how they are saying it but also what they are doing at the same time they are talking to each other. Looking at conversation from a sociological point of view, we are interested in the group memberships of the participants, their role relationships, the social categories to which they belong, etc, for all of these potentially affect the nature of the interaction which takes place, as well as the content and form of what is said (see section 5.5). Mead (1934) asserted that the self is acquired through the process of social interaction, as individuals’ subjective experiences are objectified by mutual acceptance of symbols. Mind is basically a social phenomenon, and language provides increased control over the organization of the social environment. Language and mind are interdependent, and both arise out of the process of social interaction.
Although language has its origins in the face-to-face situation, it can be readily detached from it and communicate meanings other than those connected with the here and now. We can speak about all sorts of things that are not present at all in the face-to-face situation, including things we have never experienced and never will. People speak as they think, and speaker and hearer hear what each says at virtually the same instant. The two are constantly reinforcing each other’s subjectivity, thereby creating a world perceived as objective by both. In the course of a conversation, one’s meanings become more “real” to the speaker (Berger and Luckmann 1967:32-40).
Essential to any sociolinguistic study is consideration of the social organization of speakers, whether in a speech community or as part of an interaction network. Whether and how social interaction takes place is determined to a considerable degree by the communality of linguistic codes possessed by any potential actor. Each person interacts with other persons, who, in turn. Interact with other persons. The way in which interaction is structured and the social networks thus formed are highly dependent on the availability to and adequate use of speech varieties by the actors and vice versa. We can begin by looking at who speaks to whom, when, for what purpose, and with what results. Small networks feed into large networks, which can usually be identified with social categories, and thus the micro- and the macro levels are linked.
In complex societies almost every person is not only a member of several networks but also commands a repertoire of different language, dialects, varieties, or styles which he is able to use at will depending on the situation (see Chapter 6). He can also switch from one to another in the course of a given situation. Fishman (1972c:47-48) has stressed the necessity of obtaining reliable descriptions of existing patterns of social organization in language use and behavior toward language before we can attempt to explain why or how this pattern either changes or remains stable. The researcher attempts to establish the systematic nature of code choice and code change in a given community.