6.2. Lexicology and Sociolinguistics.

Apart from a range of grammatical patterns in which words can be used, they are associated with a particular type of linguistic situation that determines the choice of words. It is now commonly taken for granted that the right choice of words depends not only on their meanings, but also, to a great extent, on their semantic and communicative appropriateness in a given context. These aspects are studied by sociolinguistics, which is a study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used,”  (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguistics). More specifically, sociolinguistics focuses on variation, social differentiation of language, dialects, sociolects, registers, language change etc. – essentially, a correlation between various social factors (age, gender, class, ethnicity) and linguistic behavior.

   Most of the means of linguistic expressions, i.e. forms and structures of language, are extremely sensitive to social conditions of communication (social setting, participants and roles they perform), which ultimately determine speakers’ choices. To provide a very basic example, it is often the case that multi-word lexical items are likely to be used in informal speech whereas their one-word equivalents are found in formal contexts, as in the following examples:

           The discussion proceeded before the agreement was reached.

           The chairman continued to give details of the case.

           The noise from next door went on and on.       

   Another type of structural variation that affects (social) contexts of use – some scholars employ the term register here [Biber, Grammar of Spoken and Written…] – is the choice between a phrasal verb and its monolexemic equivalent:

            Food industry makes up / constitutes most of the income this year.

            It’s a shame they are pulling down / demolishing that old building over there.

            You can be easily taken in / deceived by his fair words and refined manners.

She came into / inherited millions after her husband’s death.

   The lexical items above are all examples of variation within language. Different structural types of the lexicon provide various options in constructing speech. Speakers should be aware of the idea of variety and scope of lexical items and make their choice of the appropriate word with regard to the situation and the communicative effect they are aiming for.

 From this follows that any study of vocabulary, if it is to account for a full range of factors that determine word choice, necessarily draws on sociolinguistic data. By way of illustration, let us consider in a little more detail what differences there are between the following sentences conveying the same idea or, at least, referring to the same situation:

1. The man is in love with the lovely girl.

2. The gentleman is enamored of the charming lady.

3. The guy got a crush on the cute chick.  

4. The bloke/chap fancies the bonny lassie.

5. The dude’s crazy about this here broad.

Variation is a characteristic feature inherent in most linguistic means as there usually are multiple ways of saying the same thing. In the examples above, every sentence signals a different social situation even though the general idea expressed in them is nearly the same. We say “nearly” because, for example, the predicates in these sentences are expressed by verbs and expressions that display variation in terms of degree, intensity, manner etc. of the action described. The first sentence can be regarded as the most neutral. The speaker, in all likelihood, is detached and emotionally uninvolved and sounds as if s/he is impartially reporting or commenting on a situation. The situation itself, which calls for this kind of neutral language, may well presuppose – but does not have to – a certain social distance between the person speaking and the one(s) being spoken to. Neutral language is almost always used between people who either do not know each other or do  not know each other very well. The speaker is most probably not reading any additional meanings into the words s/he is saying. Apart from the word lovely, which carries mostly positive connotations – emotions and associations evoked by a word² – the words used in the first sentence are largely neutral or, as contexts like this tend to be described, stylistically unmarked. Sentence 2, on the other hand, brings to mind a formal situation in which the use of the words gentleman and lady to designate “man” and “girl” is appropriate. Neither can enamored be employed in speech as it is considered extremely formal. A sentence like this is most likely to be encountered in literary writing. Conversely, sentences 3 and 4 are more likely to be spoken than written. The vocabulary employed in both these sentences belongs to informal and very informal strata (e.g. bloke, chick) and the contexts evoked by these utterances are social milieus of adolescents, youth subcultures  (esp. sentence 3: cute, chick) and other informal social groups. There is a marked difference between 3 an 4, however. They represent two different varieties of English – American and British respectively. Words like guy, cute, chick – in the senses of the present context – would be somewhat uncommon in British English, while the reverse is true of the British counterparts: chap /bloke are not really used outside of the UK, and certainly not in the US. Incidentally, chap and bloke, although synonymous, are not entirely the same, as bloke is more informal and, besides, they conjure up slightly different connotations. There is even more than that to sentence 4, however. Apart from its colloquial character, the utterance is imbued with additional associations. The words bonny and lassie evoke stylistic connotations of a place, notably Scotland and the north of England, by virtue of their Scottish origin. This sort of wording could be employed for rhetorical purposes and/or to add a facetious touch to what is being conveyed. In different contexts, it can produce different stylistic effects and be imbued with a different pragmatic meaning. And, finally, the last sentence represents American non-standard speech and, apart from lexical (dude, broad), contains grammatical markers of non-standard language. The latter is manifest through a syntactic construction this here + Noun, which corresponds to Standard this + Noun and is characteristic of uneducated or/and dialectal speech. The standard vs. non-standard dichotomy is a reflection of social stratification of language, and vocabulary in particular. The sentence is rich in connotations, and may have multiple interpretations, which may range from jocular (dude, broad) to offensive (broad is an impolite term for a woman). It is noteworthy that dude, which goes back to the late 19^th century, was popularized by black speakers (1920s – 1930s) and especially by black entertainers in the 1970s and 1980s. In one route of development, dude generalized to “any male” and it is in this meaning that the word has become widely known, if not widely used. All these previous contexts may also contribute to many possible readings of the present sentence.

   It is thus safe to conclude that not only is vocabulary subject to a great deal of variation, but, more often than not, this variation is socially motivated: either by way of certain social characteristics of the speaker (age, gender, social class, ethnicity etc.), but also by parameters of the social situation in which communication takes place (formal – informal; personal – public etc.). Words do not occur in isolation, just like language does not function in a vacuum. It is essential to know what governs speakers’ choices, what options (of words) are at their disposal and what effect different words might have on the listener or reader.