
- •Sociolinguistics Class: Lectures, Questions, Handouts and Articles Written and compiled by Todd m. Ferry Starobilsk Department of Lugansk National Pedagogical University
- •Introduction to the topic:
- •Sociolinguistics: syllabus
- •Introduction:
- •Use at least three sources.
- •Footnote all citations.
- •Language and culture
- •Doctrine of linguistic relavtivity
- •Chomsky
- •Sapir_whorf hypothesis
- •The point
- •In summation
- •Sociolinguistics—again
- •Language definition part II.
- •What is a variety? slide#2
- •Slide #3
- •Slide #4 and #5
- •Slide #6
- •Slide #7
- •**Please look at your hand out
- •Regional dialects
- •Isoglosses
- •Variables
- •Bet and better, sometimes pronounced without the “t” like be-h and be-hher
- •He don’t mean no harm to nobody
- •Idiolect: redirect to slide # 5
- •Problems with accent
- •Lecture 3: When Languages Collide
- •Review: code/language
- •Slide 1: code switching
- •Review: speech community
- •Code-mixing
- •Slide 4: surzhyk
- •Borrowing
- •Languages collide
- •Pidgins
- •Slide 5: pidgin
- •Slide 5.5 and slide 6
- •Slide 10: Hawaiian Pidgin-Creole
- •Hawiian Pidgin-Creole
- •Slide 11: hawaiian pidgin-creole history History
- •Slide 13: hawiian pidgin-creole grammar/pro. Pronunciation
- •Grammatical Features
- •Slide: 14 gullah language
- •African origins
- •Lorenzo Turner's research
- •Slide 15: gullah verbal system Gullah verbs
- •Gullah language today
- •Slide 18: language shift language shift
- •Language planning and policy
- •Implicit language policy
- •Language planning in ukraine
- •Ukrainian language (1917-1932) Ukrainianization and tolerance
- •Russian language (1932-1953)
- •Russian language 1970’s-1980’s
- •Independence to the present
- •Slide 23: census data
- •Social interaction
- •Speech acts
- •Or for example ordering food at a restaurant
- •Now, taking it a step farther, what if your speech act fails? What if you do not say, “It is getting cold in here,” so that your friend understands your meaning?
- •Speech as skilled work
- •Norms governing speech
- •1. Norms governing what can be talked about: taboos and euphemism.
- •2. Norms governing non-verbal communication: body language
- •What does eye contact mean?
- •Conversational structure
- •Turn-taking
- •4. Norms governing the number of people who talk at once:
- •5. Norms governing the number of interruptions
- •We can say it more clearly as: I respect your right to…
- •Solidarity and power
- •Greetings and farewells
- •Labov, linguistic variable, middle class
- •English poll
- •Pronunciation and class dropping the g
- •Norwich, england
- •Los angeles
- •Dropping the h
- •Dropping the r or r-lessness—intrusive r—rhoticity
- •Labov’s new york department store
- •British english r-Lessness
- •Other r-variations
- •Various social dialects
- •In britain cockney—london, england (class based social dialect)
- •Characteristics
- •Aspect marking
- •New York English and Southern American English
- •You and me and discrimination
- •Aave in Education
- •Gender discrimination
- •History
- •Affirmative positions
- •Neutral positions
- •Negative positions
- •Articles
- •Sociolinguistics
- •Walt Wolfram
- •Language as Social Behavior
- •Suggested Readings
- •Which comes first, language or thought? Babies think first
- •Americans are Ruining English
- •American English is ‘very corrupting’
- •One way Americans are ruining English is by changing it
- •A language - or anything else that does not change - is dead
- •Both American and British have changed and go on changing
- •Sociolinguistics Basics
- •What is dialect?
- •Vocabulary sometimes varies by region
- •People adjust the way they talk to their social situation
- •State of American
- •Is English falling apart?
- •Sapir–Whorf hypothesis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- •[Edit] History
- •[Edit] Experimental support
- •[Edit] Criticism
- •[Edit] Linguistic determinism
- •[Edit] Fictional presence
- •[Edit] Quotations
- •[Edit] People
- •[Edit] Further reading
- •[Edit] External links Speech act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- •[Edit] Examples
- •[Edit] History
- •[Edit] Indirect speech acts
- •[Edit] Illocutionary acts
- •[Edit] John Searle's theory of "indirect speech acts"
- •[Edit] In language development
- •[Edit] In computer science
- •Performative utterance From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- •[Edit] Austin's definition
- •[Edit] Distinguishing performatives from other utterances
- •[Edit] Are performatives truth-evaluable?
- •[Edit] Sedgwick's account of performatives
- •[Edit] Naming
- •[Edit] Descriptives and promises
- •[Edit] Examples
- •[Edit] Performative writing
- •[Edit] Sources
- •Intas Project: Language policy in Ukraine
- •Resolution On The Oakland "Ebonics" Issue Unanimously Adopted at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Chicago, Illinois January 3, l997
- •Selected references (books only)
- •From “Ukrainian language” in Wikipedia Ukrainianization and tolerance
- •[Edit] Persecution and russification
- •[Edit] The Khrushchev thaw
- •[Edit] The Shelest period
- •[Edit] The Shcherbytsky period
- •[Edit] Gorbachev and perestroika
- •[Edit] Independence in the modern era
- •Dialects of Ukrainian
- •[Edit] Ukrainophone population
- •Questions from articles for seminars
- •Sociolinguistics Discussion Questions for Seminar Two:
- •Sociolinguistics Discussion Questions for Seminar Three:
- •Handouts Lecture 1. Definitions, Chomsky and Sapir-Whorf
- •Social interaction
- •The norms governing speech
- •We can say it more clearly as: I respect your right to…
- •Aave aspectual system
- •Additional materials Dialect Map of American English
- •Southeastern dialects:
[Edit] Examples
In saying "Watch out, the ground is slippery" Peter performs the speech act of warning Mary to be careful.
In saying "I will try my best to be at home for dinner" Peter performs the speech act of promising to be at home in time.
In saying "Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention, please?" Peter requests the audience to be quiet.
In saying "Can you race with me to that building over there?" Peter challenges Mary.
[Edit] History
For much of the history of linguistics and the philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as a way of making factual assertions, and the other uses of language tended to be ignored. The acclaimed work of J. L. Austin, particularly his "How To Do Things with Words", led philosophers to pay more attention to the non-declarative uses of language. The terminology he introduced, especially the notions "locutionary act", "illocutionary act", and "perlocutionary act", occupied an important role in what was then to become the "study of speech acts". All of these three acts, but especially the "illocutionary act", are nowadays commonly classified as "speech acts".
Austin was by no means the first one to deal with what one could call "speech acts" in a wider sense. Earlier treatments may be found in the works of some church fathers[citation needed] and scholastic philosophers[citation needed], in the context of sacramental theology[citation needed], as well as Thomas Reid[1], and C. S. Peirce[2].
Adolf Reinach (1883–1917) has been credited with a fairly comprehensive account of social acts as performative utterances dating to 1913, long before Austin and Searle. His work had little influence, however, perhaps due to his untimely death at 33 (having immediately enlisted in the German Army at the onset of war in 1914).
The term "Speech Act" had also been used already by Karl Bühler in his "Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften”, Kant-Studien 38 (1933), 43, where he discusses a Theorie der Sprechhandlungen and in his book Sprachtheorie (Jena: Fischer, 1934) where he uses "Sprechhandlung" and "Theorie der Sprechakte".
Austin distinguishes between illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts. An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that performed in the utterance of what Austin calls performatives, typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I sentence you to ten years imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating, sentencing, promising) is performed by the utterance of the sentence itself.
The study of speech acts forms part of pragmatics, an area of linguistics.
In philosophy, especially in ethics and philosophy of law, speech act theory is often treated as related to the study of norms.
[Edit] Indirect speech acts
In the course of the performance of speech acts we ordinarily communicate with each other. The content of communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the content intended to be communicated, as when I request Peter to wash the dishes in saying "Peter, could you please do the dishes".
However, the meaning of the linguistic means used (if ever there are ones, for at least some so-called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may also be different from the content intended to be communicated. I may, in appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the dishes in just saying "Peter ...!", or promise to do the dishes in saying "Me!" One common way of performing speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed to perform this act, but additionally to perform a further speech act, which is not indicated by the expression uttered. I may, for instance, request Peter to open the window in saying "Peter, will you be able to reach the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he will be able to reach the window, and at the same time requesting him to do so if he can. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a question, it counts as an indirect speech act.
Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example a speaker asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and another replies, "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class" does not entail any sort of rejection.
This poses a problem for linguists because it is confusing to see (using a rather simple approach) how the person who made the proposal is able to understand that his proposal was rejected. Following substantially an account of Paul H. Grice, Searle suggests that we are able to derive meaning out of indirect speech acts by means of a cooperative process out of which we are able to derive multiple illocutions; however, the process he proposes does not seem to accurately solve the problem. Sociolinguistics has studied the social dimensions of conversations. This discipline considers the various contexts in which speech acts occur.