Ami

LANGUAGE VARIETIES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
Large scale societies are heterogeneous both socioculturally and linguistically. On the one hand, there are different social classes, ethnic groups, religious denomination, occupation, etc; on other hand, different languages, dialects, and styles are used . the relationship between these two types of heterogeneity is one of the central concerns of the sociology language.
Grammar books purport to describe the normal and usage of a particular language, language, but frequently what they are describing is a specialized variety, and they fail to mention different styles of usage in the language in the language. As Crystal ( 1971:61) indicates, “What we normally refer to as ‘the English (or French) language’ is in reality not a single, homogeneous entity, about which we can speak absolutely, it is rathera conglomeration of regional and social dialects, personal and group styles, all of which are different from each other in various degrees”.
Opinions vary as to whether ethnographical description must precede the description of language varieties within a society or vice versa. Some analysts group speakers solely on the basis of linguistically defined groups. Other determined socioeconomic group, While the division of groups on a linguistic basis is a more reliable indication of sociolinguistic differences than the use use some objective socioeconomic index, when we describe linguistic differences in terms of predetermined groups, we are abie to take advantage of what we already know from the objective indices of social class, foe example. The most desirable course of action would be to attempt to take full advantage of the insights to be derived from both perspectives (Wolfram and Fasold 1974:16).
It must not be assumed that there is necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between groups memberships and speech variety. People may be multilingual or multidialectal or speak “better” or ”worse” than the majority of the social group to which they belong. A person may even pattern his speech after that that of a group to which he does not even belong, that is a reference group.
81
Sociolinguistic seek to establish relationships between the use of particular language varieties and other social phenomena. They also wish to look at a particular community or society as a unit and examine how its structure is related to the language varieties utilized by its members. Thus, for example, one is interested in the number of speakers of each language variety and in their characteristic. Data are often collected in this regard in censuses and surveys of populations.
Language question involved in censuses include question about mother tongue, language used in the home, and all languages spoken. Definitions and criteria have varied widely among countries, and even in the same country, from one census to the next. For example, Spanish speaking people in the united states have been variously recorder as being of ”Spanish origin” having a “ Spanish mother tongue.” Oras” living in a household where at leas one person speak Spanish. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain the linguistic composition of the population or to study changes over time with reference to language maintenance or shift (lieberson 1966).
We can describe human communities in terms of their linguistic repertoires. Each repertoire is conceived of as consisting of a series of functionally related codes, such as genetically distinct language, dialects and superposed varieties of the same languages or different styles, depending on the community’s history. Many scholars now use in term variety as a nonjudgmental and nonemotional technical term in order to avoid using such judgmental and emotion laden concepts such as language, dialect, standard, etc. we need precisely such a term because what is or is not a language and how it is to be classified may represent major emotional, political and ideological issues.
Ferguson (1971 : 30) defines variety as follows “any body of human speech pattern which is sufficiently homogeneous to be analyzed by available techniques of synchronic description and which has a sufficiently large repertory of elements and their arrangements or processes with board enough semantic scope to function in all normal contexts of communication.” A language would then consist of one or more varieties which might share a single superposed variety, such as a literary standard language. All these would have substantial similarity in phonology, grammar, and lexicon and would normally be either mutually intelligible or else be connected by a series of mutually intelligible varieties.
A regional variety is a variety thought to be characteristic of some particular geographical region. Such a variety is of course, never completely homogeneous, being characterized by considerable internal variability (as are all language varieties) and differentiated from other similar regional varieties more in quantitative than qualitative terms. If, as a result of migration, persons speaking a particular regional variety come to be concentrated in another geographical area but are separate socially from other speakers by endogamy and maintenance of their own subculture, we may consider their speech now some sort of social variety. For example, southern whites and blacks have brought their speech patterns to recognized as speakers of “Hillbilly English,” social rather than regional varieties.
























82
If the speakers of a social variety maintain (or are forced to maintain) the boundaries of their group so as virtually to regard themselves as a separate society of people, their speech may come to be regarded as an ethnic or religious variety, or even as a separate language, depending on the degree of social and linguistic separation between these speakers and other groups in the same society. In any case, their own variety will be used for intragroup communication and a different variety for intergroup communication.
An important question relates to accounting for the origin and persistence of a multitude of language varieties in human communities. Each language variety can be considered as fulfilling some particular function or functions in the community. If a function is not longer needed, the language variety which fulfills that functions may become obsolete, or if a language variety dies out, its functions may be shifted to another variety. Cause and effect relationships, however, are difficult to establish in such cases. Fishman (1972:51) indicates that a speech community ordinarily maintains a functional differentiation of the linguistic varieties in its repertoire. Different varieties will be used for different purposes and in different settings. It is difficult to maintain two or more varieties with the same function. In such a case, one variety must either displace the other or a new functional differentiation be developed.
All varieties of all languages are equal in the sense that all may expand or contract as functions change, and all can be influenced and panetrated by the influence of other varieties. The extend to which these events occur is determined by the norms. These norms can changes as the community changes in self concept objective circumstances or in its relations with other communities.
Language varieties survive because of their functional differentiation, and their status derives largely from the function they serve. Such varieties have certain symbolic values, frequently by social consensus because they represent certain symbolic values frequently by social consensus because they represent certain ethnic or class antecedents or certain interests in the society.
As contrasted with modem societies, traditional societies show extreme internal linguistic diversity. In such societies, it sometime happens that political administration, religious affairs, literally activity, and ordinary conversation are carried on in different languages. A classical or foreign language may be used in governmental and religious institutions, with the local populations generally speaking a variety of unwritten languages, e.g. Latin and local vernaculars in medieval Europe. The low rate of literacy tends to favor concentration of power in a small elite. Internal linguistic diversity comes to symbolize the extremes of social and political stratification. As societies modernize, there is a reductions of the gap between the literary and administrative languages. On the one hand, and the popular varieties, on the other. Language standardization tends to correlate with increasing literacy as standard languages become more accessible to all.
Nida(1975:143) distinguishes there types of languages(1) international for example, English, French, or Spanish, which is used in countries of various nationalities and accepted as vehicles of communication in international affairs; (2) national languages, e.g. polish, Dutch, and Greek, which are used as vehicles of communication within a given country, and (3) ethnic or regional languages (or dialects), e.g Welsh, Kikongo, Zulu and Cree, which serve as vehicles of





















83

communication for more restricted groups within a given country. Some societies use only one language, some two or three, or more. In a society with a typical three language structure , a world language is used for the communication of specialized information but some national language for elementary education and local government administration, the in-group language being utilized on a much more circumscribed basis. For example, in Kenya, the three languages are English, Swahili, and a local language.
Two-language structures are common throughout the world, as, for example, in many Latin American countries where Spanish and indigenous language or languages are used. On the other hand, native speakers of one of the world languages typically live in a one language situations. The united states, France or Germany, for example, are basically one language societies, although they have large linguistic minorities.
Linguistic diversity and variation serve to communicate social information about the speaker, as well as to provide specialized codes for communication within groups of technical or other specialists. If the variation is one of style rather than of language or dialect, social mobility is encouraged, and the society is more open. Standardized languages modern nations help to foster this kind of openness. On the other hand, oppression of the poor or of minorities may help maintain a high degree of linguistic diversity, and groups will regard their own variety as a mark of social identity.
Groups share linguistic characteristics because their members communicate with each other more than with nonmembers. This is true of ethnic and national groups, social, classes, and geographical groups. Slang, professional jargon, and criminal argot all serve as boundary maintenance mechanisms, as do all secret or semisecret languages in fact, all language varieties. As leach has noted, “ … for a man to speak one language rather than another is a ritual act; it is a statement about one’s personal status; to speak the same language as one’s neighbors expresses solidarity with these neighbors; to speak a different language from ones neighbors expresses social distance or even hostility” (Leach 1954:49, quoted by Sibayan 1974:221-222).
A language imposed from above over a number of regional or social varieties is known as a superposed variety of a language. Some varieties like vernaculars are acquired by interaction in face-to-face groups, while the superposed variety is acquired by symbolic integration into some more abstract entity like nation, region, or social class, usually by formal education. The first type of variety is preserved by communication gaps between the speakers of different varieties. The second type is acquired and maintained even without face to face interaction. Thus, one might acquire , for example , a colloquial dialect at home and a standard language at school in modern, open societies, e.g. United States or West Germany, the speech community is more traditional, closed societies, e.g. Peru or Afganistan, the speech community is likely to use varieties of several different languages. The more roles are compartmentalized and made difficult of access through personal achievement, the more linguistic compartmentalization we are likely to find as well (Fishman 1972b:27).





































84