Lecture 1. Sociology of language

1. Tragic destiny of language variety.

2. Speakers’ attitude to the language diversity.

3. The problem of vernacular varieties.

4. Dialect policy in British schools.

5. Sociolinguistic dimentions, W. Bright.

We have already discussed a number of cases, in which irrational attitudes and discriminatory decisions, often made by governments or other official bodies acting out of ignorance or prejudice, have led to language policies, which have had detrimental effects on children's education and even on societies as a whole. We saw that the British government in the eighteenth century attempted to make the speaking of Gaelic illegal. We discussed the way in which non-standard dialects of English, such as AAVE, have incorrectly been graded as inferior or inadequate. We noticed the extent to which varieties of Lingua Franca, Pidgin or Creole English were looked down as 'Broken English'. And we have observed the political disadvantage at which speakers of minority languages can often find themselves.

Many other similar examples of prejudice and unreason could be given. In 1994, for example, a minister in the French government tried to outlaw the use of English words in French, on the totally erroneous grounds that the French language is under some kind of threat. Many languages are under threat, as we shall see below, but French is most certainly not the one of them. There has also been a powerful political movement in the USA in recent years, known as the 'English only' movement, which has been attempting to exclude languages other than English from the educational, cultural and political life of many states. Some of the supporters of this movement argue that they are in favour of it because the position of American English is being threatened. In actual fact, of course, of all the hundreds of language varieties in the USA, American English is the one, which is most definitely the least under threat.

It is a sad but true sociolinguistic fact that language issues can bring out the worst, as well as the best, in human beings, some Baltic Republics people now, who would otherwise pride themselves on being intelligent and rational, can behave in the most illogical ways when it comes to language issues. One of the things that linguists in general and sociolinguists in particular have tried to do over the years is to encourage people to think in a more sensible way about language issues by providing them with more information about languages. This is important for all sorts of reasons to do with fairness, equality and even the future of humanity. None of the irrational attitudes towards the languages, we have just cited, has any basis in fact, but they can have all sorts of unfortunate consequences.

One of the very distressing consequences that attitudes of this type can have is language death. The question, linguists are often asked, is: how many languages are there in the world? This is a rather difficult question to answer because of the dialect-versus-language issue we have discussed a number of times in the course of lectures. It is not too inaccurate to say, however, that there are about 5,000 languages in the world today. What looks sad and distressing is that this number is smaller than it used to be and has been getting smaller all the time. It is certainly true that languages have a tendency to wax and wane, but in the last years of the twentieth century languages are dying out and disappearing at an increasingly catastrophic rate.

What happens is that communities go through a process of civilization and language shift. It means that a particular community gradually abandons its original native language and goes over to speaking another one, more civilized instead. This has been a relatively common process in the sociolinguistic history of the world. Two hundred years ago, for example, most of the population of Ireland were native speakers of Irish Gaelic. Now the vast majority of its population has abounded it; they are native speakers of English.

Before the Roman conquest the population of much of what is now known as France were speakers of the Celtic language Gaulish. Subsequently, however, they shifted to the language of their conquerors Latin, which eventually became French. Later on, the northern part of France was conquered by the Germanic-speaking Franks. These conquerors, however, eventually went through a process of language shift and ended up speaking French too. Similarly, the Norwegian-speaking Vikings who subsequently conquered and settled in the part of Northern France, which we now call Normandy, also shifted from their Scandinavian language to French. A few generations later, as a result of the Norman conquest of England in 1066, these former Scandinavians took the French language to England. Once in England, however, the descendants of the Norman conquerors (only a few generations later) abandoned their native tongue and shifted this time to English.

What is different about the modern situation, however, is the speed and the extent of the language shift which is taking place around the world. In most cases, moreover, language shift is leading to complete language death - the total disappearance of languages from the world. When the Normans stopped speaking Norwegian and shifted to French, Norwegian still survived in their Scandinavian homeland. But if Irish finally disappears from Ireland, which seems likely although not inevitable, this will represent an instance of complete language death.

Cornish, for example, a member of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages, formerly spoken in Cornwall in south-western Britain became extinct in the 18th or early 19th century as a result of displacement by English. Cornish was most closely related to Breton, the Celtic language of Brittany in north-western France.

Cornish was strongly influenced by English even in medieval times, and later its orthography and vocabulary showed many English elements. By 1600 it was spoken only in the farthest western part of Cornwall; and by 1800, or shortly thereafter, it had no speakers at all. Modern revivalists have constructed a “unified Cornish,” in which some works have been written. Although a few enthusiasts have learned to speak it, it shows no signs of establishing itself.

Manx, a member of the Goidelic group of Celtic languages, formerly spoken on the Isle of Man. Like Scottish Gaelic, Manx was an offshoot of Irish, and it is closely related to the easternmost dialects of Irish and to Scottish. The earliest record of the Manx language is a version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, translated into Manx in 1610 by a Welsh bishop who used an orthography based on that of English. Manx was spoken by the majority of inhabitants of the Isle of Man until the 19th century, when it was displaced by English. There are no longer any native speakers of the Manx language.

Breton, a member of the Brythonic group of Celtic languages, spoken in Brittany in north-western France. It was introduced there in the 5th and 6th centuries by Brythonic Celtic refugees who were displaced from southern England by the influx of Anglo-Saxons. The language is closely related to Cornish and Welsh but has been influenced by French and perhaps by a continental Celtic language formerly spoken in the region. Two standardized forms of Breton were developed in the mid-20th century to encourage the literary development of the language; but the French government encourages the use of French rather than Breton, and the number of Breton speakers has been declining.

In the rest of the world the problem is much more complicated. In both Americas, for instance, at the time of the first European conquest in the fifteenth century, at least a thousand different languages were spoken. In the past 400 years, at least 300 of those languages have died out completely. Of the remaining 700, only 17 have more than 100,000 speakers, and only one of those, Navaho, is in North America. More than 50 languages have died out in the USA alone since the arrival of Europeans.

In the Pacific Ocean area, the problem is probably the worst. As many as a quarter of all the world's languages are spoken in this area, and very many of them indeed are under threat. In Australia, for instance, there used to be about 200 aboriginal languages. Of these, 50 are already dead, and another 100 are very close to extinction. Perhaps, as few as 30 will remain by 2010.

Linguists believe that this is a very serious problem, and that the preservation of linguistic diversity in the world should have a high priority in the same way that the preservation of biological diversity does. It is obvious, for example, that the connection between languages and cultures is an intimate one, and that the disappearance of languages from the world could greatly speed up the process of cultural homogenisation. A mono-cultural world would not only be a very dull but probably also a very stagnant place. Languages as partial barriers to communication are probably also a good thing since they make it more difficult for the cultures of economically powerful and populous societies to penetrate and replace those of smaller communities.

Joshua Fishman, an American sociolinguist, has been active in trying to combat this process. Reversing language shift is an activity, which requires considerable sociolinguistic expertise and knowledge as well as hard work and large sums of money. The aim is to help small culturally threatened communities to transmit their languages to the next generation. Money for nursery schooling using the mother tongue can be vital. The provision of incentives and opportunities to use the language in everyday life is also important. And it is necessary for communities to understand that bilingualism is normal and beneficial and not some kind of aberration (заблуждение).

Perhaps even more important, however, are peoples' attitudes to languages. There are very many, often complex, reasons why language shift takes place. Frequently, though, people abandon the language which is the repository of their culture and history and which has been the language of their community for generations because they feel ashamed of it. If rich and powerful people more technologically advanced than yourself tell you frequently enough that your language is inferior and backward, you may end up believing them and come to think that way yourself. If you also see that people who speak your language are treated unfavourably and discriminated against, then that too will obviously be a powerful disincentive against using it.

Such negative evaluations are made not only in the case of languages. They are also often made, as we have seen, in the case of dialects. Here, too, unfavourable and irrational attitudes towards non - standard varieties are widespread. Although it makes no sense at all to claim that one variety of, say, English, is linguistically superior to any other, there are many people who believe that this is in fact the case and who act on that assumption. For example, in the English-speaking world, the variety of English used in schools is Standard English, while the language of most children, and working-class children to a greater extent than middle-class children, consists of various types of non-standard English. Educational difficulties may obviously arise from this difference. One important factor causing such difficulties for working-class children, however, may be the unfavourable attitudes of teachers towards non-standard dialects. Even if these attitudes are only subconscious, they can lead to unwitting discrimination in favour of children with middle-class accents and dialects.

Just as in the case of language death, so irrational, unfavourable attitudes towards vernacular, non-standard varieties can lead to dialect death. This disturbing phenomenon is as much a part of the linguistic homogenization of the world - especially perhaps in Europe - as language death is. Therefore in many parts of the world, we have been chagrined (сожалеть) at waning (убывать) of regional variation in language, i.e. less and less dialect variation Thus, in the 19^th century Germany almost every village were different dialect speakers. Today they are all speakers of hochdeutsch.

There are specific reasons, particularly in the context of Europe, to feel chagrin about the effects of dialect death. This is especially so since there are many people who care a lot about language death but who couldn't care less about dialect death: in certain countries, the intelligentsia seem to be actively in favour of dialect death.

It may not be immediately obvious that dialects are just as intimately linked to cultures, as are languages. But just as there are national cultures, so there are local cultures, and dialects symbolise these local cultures and maintain and defend them. Indeed, in modern Europe it is possible to argue that, at least in some cases, local identities as symbolised by dialects are actually more desirable than national identities as symbolised by standard languages. In some situations, regional dialects, by reinforcing local cultures and local identities, may act as a counter (быть разменной монетой) to nationalism.

It is also necessary to point out to those who despise regional dialects that dialect death and standardisation can actually cause, rather than solve, communication problems. This is particularly likely to be the case where there are geographical dialect continua. Take, for example, the border between The Netherlands and Germany. As we saw earlier, this is a border without a dialect boundary. Speakers on either side of the border speak dialects which are the same or very similar. This means that for generations there has been an easy cross-border communication, as there continues to be today.

Working-class Dutch people from Nijmegen, for example, travel across the border to the German town of Cleves to visit, to shop, and to work. Working-class Germans travel in the opposite direction. However, just as western European nations are breaking down barriers to cross-border travel and employment, middle-class Dutch and German people from Nijmegen and Cleves are no longer able to participate so readily in this cross-border traffic. This is because they can no longer speak the local dialect. If middle-class Dutch people who can only speak Standard Dutch want to travel to work in Germany, they have to study and learn Standard German because the people of Cleves cannot understand Standard Dutch. Many Dutch people have learnt Standard German, but fewer Germans have learnt Standard Dutch. The dialect continuum, which permitted easy communication has, at least for middle-class speakers, been cut and broken by standardisation.

We have to acknowledge that much dialect loss in modern Europe is due to processes connected with geographical mobility and urbanisation, which are probably sociolinguistically inevitable. There is nothing we can or would wish to do about that. What we can work against is that kind of dialect loss, which is the result of attitudinal factors. In most European countries, although the majority of the population do not speak standard varieties, they are discriminated against in various ways and made to feel that their native vernacular dialects are inferior, not only socially, which is unfortunately true, but also linguistically, which is most emphatically not true. It is hardly surprising therefore, if many of them try to shift to the standard variety even if, at some level of consciousness, they do not really want to.

In this kind of atmosphere, traditional dialects or patois [´pætwa:] can disappear surprisingly quickly. Traditional dialects have more or less disappeared from most of England, for example - although not from Scotland - and in many parts of the French-speaking world the picture is the same. There is often, of course, a direct relationship between the degree of hostility to dialects and the rate at which they disappear. One way of combating this hostility is to point to those fortunate, more tolerant societies, which do have greater respect for language varieties as good examples to be followed.

In many dialect-hostile parts of Europe, including England, there is a widespread view that dialects are out-of-date, old-fashioned, unsophisticated, divisive, economically disadvantageous. To combat this belief, we can point to the following fact. In 1990, according to many measurements of per capita income, the three richest countries in Europe were Luxemburg, Norway and Switzerland; all three countries are dialect-speaking.

We remember that the entire indigenous population of Luxemburg is dialect-speaking. They learn and use German and French, but their mother-tongue is Luxemburgish (it is widely regarded as a dialect of German).

Norway, too, is one of the most dialect-speaking countries in Europe. Some people do speak a form of Standard Norwegian, but the majority do not, whatever the social situation. People speak dialect on radio and TV, professors give lectures in dialect, and authors write poems and novels in dialect. The most important aspect of the Norwegian language situation, however, is that there is an enormous societal tolerance for linguistic diversity and that, what is more, linguistic diversity in Norway is officially recognised and officially protected. This is most clearly illustrated by the fact that in Norway there is a law, which states that teachers are not allowed to try to change the way children speak in the classroom. If children come into school speaking dialect, as most of them do, they must be allowed to continue to do so. This provides an unfortunate contrast with Britain: in 1994, the British Minister of Education announced that all children should speak Standard English.

Norway is also of considerable interest when it comes to attacking the denigration (клевета) of vernacular varieties, in that lower-social-class dialect forms have quite deliberately been introduced into the Norwegian standard languages. Standard languages, that is, do not necessarily have to be elitist. Contrast this with what has happened in other countries. Just when, in the twentieth century, literacy in Europe was supposed to become universal, we have moved the goalposts by making literacy dependent on the acquisition of standard varieties based on upper-social-class dialects, and thus more difficult for most people to acquire. You may be able to write, but unless you can write the upper-class standard variety, it doesn't count.

Switzerland, too, is well-known for its multilingualism and for its official and reasonably successful protection of four different language communities. However, the most interesting thing about Switzerland is that the majority of its inhabitants are dialect-speakers. In the so-called German-speaking area of the country, all the indigenous inhabitants are dialect speakers. It would be too much to claim, of course, that Luxemburg, Norway and Switzerland are rich because they are dialect-speakers. But we should not underestimate the degree of alienation that occurs in situations where people are denied the dignity of having respect accorded to their vernacular speech. Nor should we underestimate the advantages of having a population able to express itself fluently and clearly in its own vernacular, without having to monitor the extent to which they are speaking 'correctly' or not.

In contrast, in the English-speaking world there is a widespread but seriously mistaken assumption that dialects are made up of a series of 'errors' and that Standard English is somehow endowed with greater 'correctness' or 'clarity' or 'adequacy'. Dialects, it is believed, are 'inadequate' for certain tasks and cannot be used for educational or intellectual purposes. Similar views are held in many other places - France and Poland, for example. The Swiss German situation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, if you are to discuss a particular subject adequately, you need to be in command of its register - the vocabulary associated with that subject. But it is obvious that there is no necessary connection between dialect and register. This becomes clear if you hear two Swiss German professors discussing, say, the work of Heidegger using, 'of course, all the appropriate philosophical vocabulary, but employing also Swiss German dialect pronunciation and grammar. The same phenomenon occurs in Norway.

There are people in Britain who argue that all children should speak Standard English because those who are not able to speak it are at an economic and occupational disadvantage. This is sad but true. People who wish to become bi-dialectal must be given the opportunity to improve their chances in this way. However, this is not the same thing at all as arguing that every one should at all times and in all places speak the same standard variety.

Besides, there is an obvious moral issue here concerning the human rights of dialect speakers. If individuals suffer discrimination as a result of racism, we do not suggest that they change their race, although of course in places such as the United States there is a long and sad history of black people doing their best to look as much like white people as possible. If individuals suffer discrimination as a result of sexism, we do not suggest that they change sex, although of course there are celebrated cases in history of women pretending to be men for various reasons. If individuals suffer discrimination because of the dialect they speak, then it is the discrimination that should be stamped out, not the dialect, although of course we cannot be surprised if, in the meantime, people try to protect themselves against discrimination by acquiring another dialect.

It is important to consider what we should do about dialect differences, and dialect prejudice, in schools. In Britain probably as few as 12 per cent of children come into school being native speakers of Standard English. If we require or reward Standard English in the school system, the other 88 per cent are clearly going to be at some kind of disadvantage. What are we to do about the majority of children who are not native speakers of Standard English? So far it is possible to distinguish three different approaches that have been adopted to this problem.

The first approach has been described as 'elimination of non-standard speech'. In this approach, traditional in most parts of the English-speaking world and still quite widespread, every attempt is made in the schools to prevent children from speaking their native non-standard varieties, and each non-standard feature of which the teacher is aware is commented on and corrected. For example, the child will be told that it is 'wrong' (and perhaps even bad or a disgrace) to say:

I done it

I ain’t got it

He a good guy

Standard English, on the other hand, is presented as 'correct' and 'good' - the model to be aimed at. Pupils who attain proficiency in Standard English are often considered more favourably than those who do not.

Linguists, and many others, believe this approach to be wrong, for several reasons. First, it is wrong psychologically. Language, as we have seen, is not simply a means of communicating messages. It is also very important as a symbol of identity and group membership. To suggest to children that their language, and that of those with whom they identify, is inferior in some way is to imply that they are inferior. This, in turn, is likely to lead either to alienation from the school and school values, or to a rejection of the group to which they belong. It is also socially wrong in that it may appear to imply that particular social groups are less valuable than others. This is particularly undesirable when the language being stigmatised is that of lower-class black children and the one, which, is being extolled (превозносить), is that of white middle-class adult teachers. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is practically wrong: it is wrong because it does not and will not work. To learn a new language is a very difficult task, as many people know, and in many ways it is even more difficult to learn a different dialect of one's own language - because they are so similar, it is difficult to keep them apart.

Another fact must also be faced in very many cases. Speakers will not want to change their language - even if it were possible. First, there are no communication advantages to be gained (as there would be in learning French, for example) since the child was already able to communicate with Standard-English speakers anyway. Second, the pressures of group identification and peer-group solidarity are very strong. Linguistic research has shown that the adolescent peer-group is in many cases the most important linguistic influence. Children do not grow up speaking like their parents, and they certainly do not grow up speaking like their teachers - their speech patterns are those of their friends. In other words, time spent in the classroom trying to eradicate non-standard speech is wasted time. If children suffer because they speak non-standard English, the solution is not to eliminate the non-standard varieties.

The second approach has been called 'bidialectalism', and has received the overt support of many linguists. This approach teaches that the individual has a right to continue using a non-standard dialect at home, with friends, and in certain circumstances at school. But it also advocates that children should be taught Standard English as a school language, and as the language of reading and writing. The two varieties, standard and non-standard, are discussed and treated as distinct entities, and the differences between them are illustrated and pointed out as an interesting fact. The aims are to encourage the child's interest in language by study of his or her own dialect as a legitimate and interesting form of language, and to help the child to develop an ability in code-switching - switching from one language variety to another when the situation demands (something most non-standard - English-speaking children are often quite good at it, anyway).

This approach recognises the appropriateness of non-standard varieties for peer-group interaction and other functions, and respects children’s feelings about their own language. For best results it requires that the teacher should have some knowledge of the linguistic correlates of a social stratification, and of the child's dialect. It also concentrates solely on grammatical and vocabulary features. Of course, it may be valuable to point out to children that some accents are more highly valued than others. It seems that this approach is likely to be successful, for the most part, only with writing, which is a more conscious and less automatic activity than speaking.

In general, what the teacher does in the classroom with respect to spoken Standard English will probably be irrelevant - because of the social and psychological factors. Children will learn to speak Standard English, which is a dialect associated with and symbolic of a particular social group in the English speaking society, only if they both want to become a member of that group and have a reasonable expectation that it will be possible, economically and socially, for them to do so.

The third approach has been called 'appreciation of dialect differences'. This view states that if children suffer because of their non-standard language, this is due to the attitudes, which society as a whole, and perhaps teachers in particular, have to language of this type. If this is the case, then it is the attitudes that should be changed, and not the language. In other words, the problem is not really a linguistic one at all. We should, according to this approach, teach children to read Standard English, but, beyond that, we should simply attempt to educate our society to an understanding, appreciation and tolerance of non-standard dialects as complex, valid and adequate linguistic systems.

Critics of this approach have called it hopelessly utopian. Given time, however, it might prove to be simpler than the other two approaches, since it may be easier to change attitudes than to alter the native speech patterns of the majority of the population. The education towards tolerance could be carried out in schools - but only by teachers free from language prejudice. Supporters of this approach would hope, in the long run, for a situation where native speakers would no longer believe that they 'can't speak English'.

But what of the short run? As other critics have pointed out, in the short run we cannot afford to abandon the bidialectalism approach. Until the degree of tolerance has been achieved, children with no ability in Standard English will continue to be at a disadvantage. From the point of view of the sociolinguist, therefore, the most satisfactory solution to the problem of non-standard speakers in a Standard-English-dominated culture is the adoption in schools of a combination of the two approaches, bidialectalism and appreciation of dialect differences, bearing in mind that bidialectalism is likely to be only partially successful (and then probably only in the case of writing) and may be dangerous, particularly if insensitively handled, from the point of view of fostering linguistic insecurity.

If we are going to foster and preserve linguistic heterogeneity in the world - and it is of course precisely linguistic heterogeneity that is the subject matter of sociolinguistics - then we need all speakers of all languages and all dialects to be able to rest secure in the knowledge, that their varieties of language are all amazingly structurally complex products of the human mind, of human societies, and of tens of thousands of years of human history. All these varieties of language are worthy of being passed on to the generations to come.

American schools of linguistics consider that “sociolinguistics” has arisen of late and like “ethnolinguistics” and “psycholinguistics” poorly gives in to exact definition; actually, these three terms partly overlap each other and the difference between them is not so much a divergence in material, but a great variety of approaches and interests of contributors.

Apparently, it will be correct to say, that sociolinguistic research, as well as those conducted under a title of “sociology of language ”, deal with the relation between language and society. But such a statement is rather indefinite. If we want to be more exact we can say, that sociolinguistics differs from the first two by the attitude of the scholars towards “language – society” research.

It follows that modern views on linguistics, considering both language and society as structures, but not shear combinations of any units. In this case the task of sociolinguists is to open the system correlation of a language structure and social structure and, probably, even to detect causal interaction in all directions.

And still, though sociolinguistics has borrowed much in the sphere of methods from structural linguistics, at the same time, it sharply differs from the linguistic trends, which consider language as something absolutely uniform, homogeneous and monolithic by its structure. At such an approach (which now it seems being recognized faulty) distinctions of speech skills within the limits of one language community are simply disregarded under the mark “of free variation”. And consequently one of the major sociolinguistic problems is to show, that this variation (or this variety of skills) actually “is not free” at all, but in some definite way corresponds with the system of orderly arranged social distinctions. In this, and even in a broader plan language diversities become the basic object of sociolinguistic research.

If one is to consider divergences, as the key concept of the given area of science, it will be reasonable to assume, that the major lines of research should be connected with conditioning language differences.

1. The social status of Sender is fully exhibited in the “class dialects” style, when the distinctions in speech correspond to the distinctions in social stratification. Perhaps, the extreme expression of it may be found in the caste dialects of India. Here also belong the cases of distinction between “men’s” and “women’s” speech (P.H. Furfey 1944).

2. The social status of Recipient influences the structure of Sender’s discourse style when the former occupies a higher position in social or age stratification. Sender is to use a special lexicon expressing respect and complements. Another special style of speeches is the so-called children's speech, when it is not the subject of children’s speech itself that matters but how the adults address them. (Ch. A. Ferguson. Baby talk in six languages 1964).

3. Situation (Setting) refers to all those relevant elements in the context of communication, which do not concern the personal characteristics of Individuals. It is clearly exhibited in a special use of the war-path language by Apache on a military track (H. Hoijer 1940) or in distinctions of official and informal styles, which in majority of languages are stipulated just by social environment. In those cases when the official and informal styles sharply differ both by form and function, we speak about a situation of diglossia, existing now in the Arab speaking countries, in Modern Greece, on the Isle of Haiti, in German speaking part of Switzerland and in the greater part of Southern India (Ferguson 1964).

4. Other sociolinguistic parameters are based on goals and volume of research. Consequently, sociolinguists differ in synchronic and diachronic research. For example, J.J. Gumpertz (1958) studied synchronic differences and social stratification in a North Indian village caste dialects, while W. Bright (1964) tries to find historical explanations of divergences in caste dialects of Southern India.

5. One more aspect of the problem is the difference between how the people use their language, and what they think of their own and other people’s language behavior. This latter sphere of interests is successfully called “the people’s linguistics”, which seems to be rather attractive for sociolinguists.

6. The next parameter sounds as extent of diversity (масштабы разнообразия). It concerns the distinctions between parts of one society or nation as opposed to the same distinctions between societies or nations as a whole, and consequently to the distinctions between variants of one language in their opposition to distinctions existing between separate languages. It is expedient to include in this concept three classification types:

The first may be called multidialectal. Here the linguist studies those cases, when socially stipulate versions of one language, are used within the framework of one society or nation. For example, this opposition of U-speech (Upper-class Speech) and Non-U Speech in Great Britain or distinction between official/informal Thamili speech in Southern India.

The second classification type may be called multilingual. It deals with those cases, when inside one society or nation there function different languages. This phenomenon adjoins to the problem of multilingual nations existence in such countries as Belgium, Ghana, India, Canada, Paraguay.

The third classification type may be called multisocial, i.e. when various communities speak different languages (For example American English and British English). The scholar’s task is to discover the conformity between language and social distinctions.

7. The last parameter, to be accepted without doubt, is an “application” of material, revealing the essence of sociolinguist descriptions. Here again there are three types, which correspond to three categories of contributors.

The first kind of application reflects the interests of sociologists. Sociolinguistic data for them are, first of all, a diagnostic indication uncovering the social structure of society as a whole.. In such a way it is possible to reveal socially relevant stratification of the people and situations.

The second kind of application reflects the interests of a historian-linguist. In this case the following problems are put for investigation (research). Do language changes vary in different social settings? Do they go uniformly at a constant speed within the framework of different social dialects of one language? How does the history of language reflects interactions of social dialects?

The third kind of application is connected with those who are engaged in language planning. These are linguists, workers of education, congressmen and officials who are responsible for the formation of official language policy. So, the “normaliser”, studying some organized society, in which there is a co-existence of several dialects or languages, will have to overcome the following problems: What dialects of language must be recognized as “official” or “national” languages? Which versions may be considered as suitable for the use in official publications, in officially stimulated literary creativity, in educational establishments of different levels, in legal proceedings? What must be the official point of view to those language versions, which in these conditions have appeared unauthorized? In what degree the political stratification of a nation should correspond to the language division? How should the systems of the letter (система письма) develop and be normalized?

All set forth above moments have found reflection in sociolinguistic works of the last few years; still there are a lot of new lines of research to develop, and the arising new problems will require new data. One may hope that sociolinguistics enters a new era of its development; and now we may expect some integrated researches of linguistics, sociology and anthropology.

Books:

J. Hamers & M. Blanc. Biliguality & Bylingualism (paper back).

J. Cheshire. English around the World (paper back).

T. McArthur. The English Languages (paper back).

R.A. Hudson. Sociolinguistics (Second edition).

J. Aitchison. The Speed of Speech (paper back).

J. Aitchison. Language Change: Progress or Decay?

W. Downes. Language and Society.

K. Gjerlow and L.K. Obler. Language and the Brain.

Journals:

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 3t/y ISSN 1336 –7289.

English Today. 4t/y ISSN 0272 – 2631.

Language in Society 4t/y ISSN 0047 – 4045.

Language Variation and Change. ISSN 0954 – 3945.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11