5.2

5.2 Micro sociolinguistic analysis

It has been only in recent years that serious attention has been paid to techniques of studying linguistic behavior in face-to-face interaction with a view to controlling for the social variables involved. Anthropologists have developed techniques of participant observation and worked on the classification and analysis of various types of speech events in different cultural contexts. Sociologists have been active in two areas particularly: ethno methodology and the analysis of conversation. Sociolinguists use the concept of domain to categorize the regularities that obtain between varieties of language and socially recognized functions and situations. Such domains are not established a priori but are constructs emanating from detailed sociolinguistic analysis. Never the less, most are readily identifiable by the native speaker who is familiar with the fact that, because of the role relationships in which he finds himself, he is expected to use one variety, say, at home and another one in dealing with governmental officials, at church, at school, in the marketplace, etc. Domains are normally used to describe patterned linguistic variations at the level of the community, rather than at the level of the small group or nation state. The construct of domain provides a link between the micro- and macro sociolinguistic levels of analysis. Attitudes toward varieties may reflect attitudes toward the domains in which they are used.
A role relationship defines the mutual rights and obligations which people expect of each other, as, for example, between parent and child, teacher and student, friend and friend, or merchant and customer. An important recognition of the nature of the role relationship is revealed in the way people talk to each other, including such matters as proper use of respectful or deferential forms, informal slang, humor, etc. Not only is a certain way of speaking expected, but speaking in that fashion helps to validate the claimed statuses the content and form of language reflects the extent to which the claimed rights are being honored. Speech, for example, will mark whether the interaction is a personal (informal and fluid) or a transactional one (where mutual rights and obligations of participants are stressed).
Culturally defined roles have characteristic linguistic repertoires, whereas class and other statuses are ordinarily marked by distinct styles of speaking. In the course of his social biography, the speaker is socialized to one or more repertoires and styles, although in the specific situation their use is influenced by the reciprocal definitions of the situation by the participants and any institutional constraints.
Linguistic interaction can also be viewed as a process of decision making, in which speakers select from a range of possible expressions. Choice is not a matter of complete individual freedom on the part of the speaker but is subject to grammatical and social constraints in the interest of intelligibility and acceptability of sentences, respectively. Both are matters of social convention. Speech styles often up off the listener to what he is about to hear. When we are away from our usual surroundings, we may mislabel our speech by using an inappropriate style, thus, style is a label one puts on one’s speech. Analysts, such as Gumperz (1967), emphasize the notion that the nature of social relationships and the social categorization of the environment are the major social determinants of speech. Other factors, such as institutional setting and educational and other statuses, are significant only to the extent that they influence speakers’ perception of their social relationships.
An important alternative approach to micro sociolinguistic analysis is that of the ethnomethodologists, who question the basic assumption of a stable system of symbols and meanings which are shared by the embers of a society. They emphasize, rather, that the social construction of reality is an ongoing process of interpretation. They have adopted as their fundamental postulate the dictum of William Thomas: “If men define a situation as real, it is real in its consequences.” Unfortunately, they manifest no concern for or attempt to linkup with macro sociological concerns.
The ethnomethodologists are phenomenological sociologists who are concerned primarily with what linguistic categories men to the members of society in everyday life and their implications for members’ actions. They reject the notion of innate language ability and postulate language as a developed skill which is internalized. They view meaning not as determined by abstract structures but rather as an accomplishment of members as they engage in social interaction (Coulter 1973). The meaning of words according to this perspective is determined by the context in which they are used. It is not possible to delineate the meaning of words in some more general way. For the ethnomethodologists, words are essentially indexical expressions. They study how conversationalists make sense out of the utterances they hear.
Ethnomethodologists are interested in the socially situated use of language through a’ concern with the common sense understandings that enable participants to enter into and sustain social interaction. They make meticulous analyses of recorded conversations to understand deep situational meanings. Some, such as Sacks, emphasize the objectivity of their findings, while others, like Cicourel, are more concerned with getting at the deeper meanings. For them, language is not something used in interaction; language is interaction. The language of researchers and subjects both generates the interaction between them and is product of that interaction (Deutscher 1975:176).
Ethnomethodological studies are concerned above all with practical reasoning. Their analyses of the internal organization of conversation clearly emphasize the speaker-hearer as practical analyst and practical reasoner. They look particularly at how the speaker-hearer produces and recognized features of the talk which have consequences for the interaction. At the standard pace of conversation, speakers and hearers experience the most mundane features of talk and interaction in order to orient themselves to the delicate and rather complex features of the unfolding interaction (Tumer 1974:11).
Whether social phenomena determine individual psychic states or vice versa, or, at least, which is prior in analysis has been a cogent issue in sociology ever since Durkheim opted for the primacy of social facts. In doing micro sociolinguistic analysis, we observe that, in a conversation, speakers make certain choices, exercise certain options, while, at the macro level, we observe the social patterning of linguistic behavior. While some scholars are of the opinion that relatively stable patterns are generated from the individual choices, other treat individual choices as derived from stable sociolinguistic patterns.
A formulation of a sociolinguistic rule is basically a generalization of observed regularities. The most current formulation deals with such rules in terms of what have come to be called after nation, which concerns choice among alternative ways of speaking, and co-occurrence, which concerns interdependence within alternatives (Ervin-Tripp 1972:213). Thus, the speaker chooses a language or style; then within the code he chooses certain linguistic variables (phonological, lexical, or syntactical) which will necessarily co-occur with each other (cf. section 6.3). The speaker sized up the situation in which he finds himself, decides on the norms which apply to the situation at hand, and chooses from available alternatives, depending on his knowledge and intentions.
In referring to intent, we must consider both the referential and the social information which the speaker wishes to convey. Gumperz (1972c:220) has pointed out that “The communication of social information presupposes the existence of regular relationships between language usage and social structure.” We cannot ascertain a speaker’s social intent unless we are familiar with the norms for the use of various linguistic alternatives which that particular speaker observes, depending on the social settings in which he finds himself and the subgroups to which he belongs. when we can formalize these relationships, we are able to classify the various linguistic forms into dialects, styles, and registers.
There are a number of different linguistic devices available for the conveying of social information, such as choice of lexical, phonological, and syntactic variants; sequencing and alternation of utterances among speakers; choice of message form-that is, whether to convey a message by conversation, sermon, lecture or some other form; and code switching. Like grammatical rules, code selection rules operate below the level of consciousness and may be independent of the speaker’s own intentions. In any case, interpretation of both referential and social information must take into consideration the total context of what has been said before and what is said after wards. Social relationships appear to act as intervening variables between linguistic structures and their realization in speech