Halliday-Sociological Aspects of Semantic Change

a-

O M. A. K. Halliday 1978

Irirst published in Grear Britain 1978 byLdwrrrtl Ar rrr¡ld (Publishers) Ltd.4l Bcdford Square, London WC1B 3DQ

Firsr published in paperback 1979Reprinted 1979Reprinted 1984Reprinted 1986

Ed¡vard Arnold (Australia) Pty Ltd,80 Waverley Road, Caulñeld East, Victoria 3145, Australia

Edwa¡d Arnold.3 East Read Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. U.S.A.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataHalliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood

Language as social semiotic.1. SociolinguisticsI. Title30t.2'1 P40

ISBN 0 7131 6259 7 papet

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a ret¡ieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the priorpermission of Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.

Printed and bound in Great B tain at The Bath Press- Avon.

\-\ / a

Contents

Introduction

I The sociolinguistic persp€ctive1 Language and social man (Part 1)2 A social-functional approach to language

II A sociosemiotic interpretation of language3 Sociological aspects of semantic change4 Social dialects and socialization5 The significance of Bernstein's work for sociolinguistic

theory6 Language as social semiotic

Ill The social semantics of text7 The sociosemantic nature of discourse

lV Language and social structure8 Language in urban society9 Antilanguages

l0 An interpretation of the functional relationship betweenlanguage and social structure

V Sociolinguistics and educationI Sociolinguistic aspects of mathematical education lt),12 Breakthroughto literacy:Foreword to the American cdition 1053 Language and social man (Part 2) I I I

IJ

36

l{c Itrences

lrrdcx of subjects

lndcx of n¿rmcs

6093

t0lI ()8

128

154t64

llrl

.l ltr

245

3

Sockrlogical aspects of semantic change 61

of 'correct' designations (such as those involving geographical or personal¡eference points), the adequate or, as he puts it, 'right' semantic options,they are making use of the relevant particulars of the context of situation: i¡1

Schegloff's own lbrmulation, 'interaclants are context-sensitive.' This isanother instance of the general principle of presupposition that is embodiedin the text-forming potential of the linguistic system. Just as the speakerselects the appropriate infor¡nation focus, distributing the meanings of thetext into intbrmation that he decides to treat as recoverable to the hearer(given) and information that he decides to treat as non-recoverable (new),so in Schegloff's example the speaker selects the appropriate coordinates,and their degree of accuracy, in specifying where things are. Schegloffappears, however, to leave out the important component of'rightness'thatconsists in the participant's option of being'wrong': that is, of selecting asemantic configuration that violates the situational-contextual restraints,with a spccific communicative ef'fect - an option which, at least in the case ofinformation tbcus, participants very readily take up. (Cf. the discussion ofinformation structure, and information focus, in Halliday 1967b.)

1.2 From a sociolinguistic standpoint, a text is meaninglul not so muchbecause the hearer does r¡o¡ know what the speaker is going to say, as in a

mathematical model of communication, but because he do¿s know. He hasabundant evidence, both from his k¡rowledge of the general (includingstatistical) properties of the linguistic system and from his sensibility to theparticular cultural, situational and verbal context; and this enables him tonrake informed guesses about the meanings that are coming his way.

The selection of semantic options by the speaker in the production of text(in other words, what the speaker decides to mean) is regulated by whatI Iymes ( 1967) calls the 'native theory and system of speaking'. The memberol the comflrunity possesses a'communicative competence' that 'enab¡es

lhirn] to know when to speak and when to remain silent, which code to use,when, where and to whom, etc.'; in other words, to know the'rules ofspcaking', defined by Grimshaw (1971, 136) as'generalizations about rela-I ionsltips among components' of the speech situation. Hymes has given a list,lrow very familiar, of the eight components of speech, which may be sum-nrarized, and to a certain extent paraphrased, as follows: form and content,\ctting, participants, ends (intent and elTect), key, medium, genre, andnlcr¿lctional norms. We may co¡npare this with various earlier lists, such asth¡rt of Firth (i950) which comprised the pa¡ticipants (statuses and roles),rclevant teatures of the setting, verbal and nonve¡bal action, and eftectiver csult.

()ne ol thc dilficulties with such lists is to know what theoretical status to¡ssign to thcrn in rclation to the text. Hymes includes'lbrm and content of,r)essirge'. i.c. thc tcxt itscll, as one ol the components; compare Firth's'\ ( rl)rl ilcli()r¡()l thcl)ii[ticip¡nts'.Anultcrnativcappro chistoconsidcrtl]esilr¡lrtio¡r¡rl Ilrct()rs ¡rs rlclcr¡ri¡ürrtls ()l the tcxl.'lhis is cxcnrplilictl in thelrirrtlic lirr¡¡rr¡lrr rrsctl lrv llrrllirlrv. Mclnl()slr lr¡ttl Slrtvtr¡s (l()().1), wilh ils

Sociological asPects of semanticchange

I Text, situation and r€gist€r

1.1 Let us start with the concept of a text' with particular r:fere.nce llle^i;; ;-;ii;;tü;, which mav be regarded as tlte basic un-it.of

.semantrcstructure_thatis,ofthesemanti"cprocess.TheconcePt.text,hasnoiliiii"i'...'.T";;; it;;v '"tt' tá tp"ttt' act' speech event' topic unit'

exchangt', ePisode. narrative and so on''"Ñ;;ii;; "."

point ol view, the main interest of the text is what itle-aves

"r;.;;;;;;;1;:,h" participants in an encounter accord each other certarn

statuses and roles, anrt they do so partly by meansof al teltiol t-:.r.h: text' the

:::::.*'';;; ;; "*ctraneed

Ylt, as iicourel hai pointed out'.we know

X:;l'iii,Ü; :h",;;.; ii;;A; it: wc have no real theorv of linguistic interac-

li"JJ "ñ:,;;;, ;v*táíit u"iu'io'r is interpreted.' and .meanings

are

),.",i";. ¿i.cá;;"i'sugg"st' (lqoq,'iso-l¡ trat ihe indiui<lu.al.operates with

ii]l:i;;,;;;;"';-; f,ii'ipr"'' o' u"'*ption'' which he calls'reciprocitv ol':::",::;;.:".:"';";-,t to'rms'.'the etc¿rera principle'and'descriptive vo-

i:;:1il:;;,'.'';#i;i;;;;;"i.;;r in anv '*'t''nge or meaninss- the indi-

vidual assumes (i) that interpretations ol experience are shared (others sec

iii"-t i¡" .r*.';ay): (ii) lhal there are principles oI selection and orgart-

rrriit""""r ..r"i"g. anrl therefore also (iii) of feconstituting and sup'

nle menling om ission, l*" 'g"" on *ha( to leave out' and the othe r fills it io

:'i¡át;';rE I ;t"k encodirigs rather than omissions' with shared'key'or

;;;.;;l'"c ;,;cedures),- ,nJ (iu) tlal. wgrd.:' :' liil:' l::1:i"-rit."i.."t] riiguistic foims, are referred identically to past experlercc'

ii.t.- p¡r.rpi.t"act as 'instructions for the sPeaker-hearer for asrigning

intinitely possible meanlngs to untolding social scenes '.The sPeaker-hclrcr

;i;;;rltt;" the sociil svstem for the decoding ol tcxt'

Cicourel argues fo' a 'gtn"iative semantics' 'that begins with thc

."';;;;t "ueiyduy

world is the basic sourcc tbr assigning trreatring ltt

#;:1';i;;;;;''irsáq, lqrlt "rr¿

this kintl or approacl to tnc r¡irtrtrc irn(l

function ol text is a charactenstic of ethnonrcthotioltlgicirl lingrtislic sttrrlits

.."¡""r',t.r. .i sacks ancl Schcgkrlt. An cxam¡T lc .is

schcgloll's ( l ()7 1 )

account of how peoPle rclcI ru-iu!"'¡t'n' wltich tevcitls sotllc ol lltc gctlc¡ltl

,tl"afrLt'a" -fj¡"h'lhc s¡rcrtkct'ltcitl'et'tclics itt lltc ptotlrtetiott rrt¡tl trtttlet

st¡r'ttii¡lu t¡l tlisct¡ttt\c I c litl ¡ll8l() lllc i ( I t' ¡ t I i I i c : t I i r I ¡ t ol ¡rlrtr't s lrltrlol lx t soll\' ll

ll:il,ii i':;,';i;;;;.'"""' ir''.,i"r'.." l"r r r ¡( il)ir rrr\ \' lc( r ' lr.ttt rt tt t.t t¡1 rt rt tttrtlrt t

62 A socioseniotic interpretation of language

catego¡ies of field, tenor and mode. These are categories at a more abstractlevel which are regardetl as determining rather than as including the text;they represent the situation in its generative aspect. Field refers to the

ongoing activity and the particular purposes that the use of language is

serving within the context of that activity; tenor refers to the interrelationsamong the participants (status and role relationships); and mode covers

roughly Hymes'chaonel, key and genre. There are some theoretical advan-

tages to be gained from working with a triadic construct, advantages whichrelate to the nature of the linguistic system, as suggested in chapter 7

The categories of field, tenor and mode are thus determinants and not

components of speaking; collectively they serve to predict text, via the

intermediary of the code, or (since 'code' has been used in a number ofdifferent senses) to predict what is called the register (Ure and Ellis 1972).These concepts are intended to make explicit the means whereby theobserver can derive, from the speech situation, not the text itself, of course,

but certain systematic norms governing the particulars of the text- These

norms, taken together, constitute the register. In other words, the various

subcategories of field, tenor and mode have associated with them typicalsemantic patterns - on the assumption, that is, of what Fishman calls con-

gruence (1971a, 2,14-5); so that if for a given instance of language use thc

situational features are specified, in appropriate ferms, typical linguisticfeatures can be specifiecl by derivation from them. (Note that we are con-

ccrned with the semantic properties of the text and not with the rituallexicogrammatical varia¡tts that are associated with levels of formality and

the like, although these form one part of the total picture.) If the ohse¡vercan predict the text from the situation, then it is [rot surprising if theparticipant, or'interactant', who has the same inlbrmation available to him,can derive the situation from the text; in other words, he can supply thcrelevant inlormation that is lacking. Thus the'register'concept provides a

means of investigating the linguistic tbundations of everyday social interac-

tion, from an angle that is complementary to the ethnomethodological oneiit takes account of the processes which link the features of the text, con-

sidered as the realization of semantic patterns, to the abstract categories olthe speech situation. lt is these processes which embody the'native theoryand system ol speaking'.

How fa¡ a¡e such concepts relatable to the linguistic system? The l¡t-e¡ature of sociolinguistics abounds with references to the linguist's practicc

of treating the linguistic system as an invariant, by contrast with the sociolin-guist's interest in variation;but all linguists are interested in variation, an(l

the distinction is a largely artificial one. The underlying question is that olthe nature of linguistic choice; specifically, of the various typcs oI choicc.

and their accommodation and interaction in the linguistic systcnr. llt('distinction is unfb¡tu¡ate since it implies that'code choicc' i¡r lllc scttsc olritual variation, tlte choice ol approPriatc lcvcls ol lirrnrirlily clc. is lo l)('

isolatetl fr<¡m othcl ilspccts ol chllicc. Socit¡li¡lSttislie rliscttssirllts llirv(: ()llcllrcstcrl on llrc litcil itssllnll)liol) lllill lherc wits llolllirlll rrl lrll 1o lx''¡tirl¡tlxrttl

Sociological aspects of semantic change 63

the choic€ between ca¡ and dog lhaf is a matter of the system _ whe¡eas adistinct theory was needed to account lbr the choice betíeen cct and mogfzog being a slang term lbr,cat'in certain British aiatJq. eut Uottr ttresechoices are choices that are made withir the linguistic system; what isneeded is a theory which accounts fo¡ both.

This points in the direction of a functional semantics, towards a furthcrelabo¡ation of the theories of the prague school, who have always explicitlyconcerned themse¡vcs wilh raliation. Hymes (lg6q. ll-l) recárnrzes rw<rtypes of meaning, 'social ¡üeaning, and .referential ..rning,, .Lougrug"t;have conventional units, structures and relations . . . that are ;hat I shall call"stylis¡ic" (serving social meun ing) as well as refe ren tial., Elsewhe¡e he t¡scstne term 'soc¡o-expressive'lor tlte tbrmer. ln my own work I have used atriadic system, with ideational, intetpersonal and textual components (thcfirst two probably equiyalent to Hymes,s referenrial

"n¿,n.lull. t¡" i.t"_ational being then further resoluble into experienrial and logicat (Ualliday1967c,1972).If we assume for the momeni that rhe linguis;c systenr is infact esseutially trimodal at the semantic level 1ancl therJ is stroig ¡ntcrnalevidence for this), then on the basi\ of the rhree_way categorizarlrn ol Ihcsituational determinants of text into field, tenor and moae] *e lun ,nut" ,,tentative correlation between the situation, the text, and the semantic sys_tem; by and large, it is the ideational component of the system thirt isactivated by the choice of field, the interpeisonal by the tJnor, antl thctextual by the mode. There is, in other wor'ds, u gan"ál tendency whcrcbythe speaker, in encoding the role relarionships ii the situation (ihe tcnor.;Hymes's'participants' and ,key,), draws on the interpersonal component irrthe semantic system, realized for example by mood; in encoding thc act ivity.including subjeclmatter (the fiekJ; Hymesis .se rring. and ..ná?,j, ir"*s ,,,,the ideational component, realized for e xample by tr"a nsitivity; auJ rn cncrxl-ing the-teatures of the channel, the rheto¡iial rnode and ao .rn 1ilr" ,r,,r't.;l]lf_.:'..]".lrrr"ntalilie\'and

.genre') draws on rhe lexlual .,,i,¡r,,,",,,.rcí¡ttzed for exampie by the intormation focus. These are approxil]ritli() sonly; but they^ are suggestive given that the two sets of Jatcgolies, rlr.components of the speech situation on the one hand and fhrisc ol tlr.s.cma-ntic system on the other, are established independently ol c,,.lll ,,t1,,.,.'lhe following passage provides an illusrration ot rtris poinr; Nig..l, ,,r I y,.,,,ll months, is exchanging meanings with his mother (Hntiidui iil.l:.¡,

Mother lio bathroom, Nigel sitting on chair]: Now you wait thc¡.c lill I g(.1 y()r¡rfaceclolh. Keep sitting there. LBut Nigel is already standing up orr thc clrirr.

INlge/ lill cxact imitation of mothe¡'s intonation pattern, rrot_in corrcctrrrg irrtonationl: Kcep standing thóre. put the ¡nug on the flóor.Mothert Prt thc Inug on the floor? What

-rlo you w¡nt?

Vitrr: I¡r(l,l) li¡ 'rlrlrn¡.lrM¡¡tl¡tr: ()l¡ you want D¡ddy.s kx)thl)rush (l() yo(¡,¡Vlq,/ \ts. .1,'rr I llwr,,rt 1,, p t tlrt. t¡,r i lh(. I rf.Mot,/r¿1; ¡¡¡,¡,r¡ lllc ll.(U is rrxr big lirr thc rrrrrg.Nrr¡,/: \'cs yorr c:rrr l)lt tlr(.(lurk il tlrc r¡¡till . .illtcIrulrlrlc ltit¡\(. l)ll)lrl(.

64 A sociosemiotic interpretalion of Ianguage

Mothert 'l'oñoÍÍow. Nearly all the water's run out.NEel: You w¿rnt Mummy red tóothbrush . . yes you can have Mummy old red

tóothbrush.

We might identify the situational leatures in some such terms as the

following:

Field: Personal toilet, assisted lmother washing child]; concurrently

[child] exploring (i) container principle (i.e. putting things in things) and (ii)ownership and acquisition of property (i.e. getting things that belong toother people)

Tenor: ¡y'rother and small child interaction; mother determining course ofaction; child pursuing own interests, seeking permission; mother grantingpernission and sharing child's interests, but keeping her own course in view

Mode: Spoken dialogue; pragmatic speech ('language-in-action'), thcmother's guiding, the child's furthering (accompanying or immediately pre-ceding) the actions to which it is appropriate; cooperative, without conflictof goals

Looking at the text, we find that the f€ld tends to deter¡nine the transiti\' it]patterns - the types of process, e.g. relational clauses, possessive (6et,hava)

and circumstantial: locative (pul), material process clauses, spatial: posturc(sit, stand); also the minor processes, e.g. circumstantial; locative (ür);perhaps the tenses (slrzple present); and the content aspect of the vo-

cabulary, e.g. naming of objects. All these belong to the ideational com-ponent of the semantic system.

The ,eror tends to determine the patterns of mood, e.g. Imother] impera-tive Onu wair, keep silting) and of modality, e.g. [child] permission (wal¡f k).car, and nonfinite lorms such as naft e bubble meaning' l want to be allowctlto . . .'); also of person, e.g. [mother] 'second person' §ou), [child] 'firstperson' (yoa [: 1]), and of key, represented by the system of inlonatiorr(pitch contour, e.g. child's systematic opposition of rising, demanding ir

response, versus falling, not demanding a response). These are all part of the

interpersonal component.The mode tends to determine the tbrms of cohesion, e.g. quest¡()rr

and-answer with the associated type of ellipsis (What do youwant? Dadtlttoothbrush)l the patterns of voice and theme, e.g. active voice with chil(l iissubject/thcme; the forms of deixis, e.g. exophoric Isituation-refé rring] l,/rr I

and the lexical continuity, e.g. repetition ol mug, toothbrush, put ín. Allthese fall within the textual component of the semarltics.

1.3 Thus one main strand in the sociolinguistic labric cotrsists in irttertt'lations among the three lcvcls ol (i) soci l irltcritcli()rl' tcl)lcscrrlt(l ltrr

guistically by thc text; ( ii) thc s¡recch sil t¡ ir I i(),r; irrl(l ( iii) I lrc lir rll t risl ic sysle rrr

Thisinterrcla{i()nsl¡il)c()rrslillrlcsll)esyslc¡llilli(:ts¡rtcl ol r.r'r.ryrllrys¡xccltFrorr thc sociologitltl lx)irrl 1)l vi(w. lll( l(\'lr\()l illl( rlli()ll ltttr'iso¡l lltr''¡ricto' I vel. l]v c()rltit\1, llrr' ' t r t r t r ' t ¡ r ' I r ' r r ' I trrrrtlrt s it ll¡l lll( l clll\\ilvill,l ol


speech situations, a situational typology such as is embodied in Fishman,snotion of 'domain', defined (1971a, 248) as ,the large-scale aggregariveregularities that obtain between variables and societally recognized func-tions.' A macro-level sociology of language pays attention to a .moregeneralized description of sociolinguistic variation,, in which there isassociation between a domain, on the one hand, and a specific variety orlanguage on the other. A domain may be defined in terms of any of thecomponents of speech situation: tbr example, in paraguay it is found thatGuarani is used in settings which are rural, ancl, among the nonrural, in thoscwhich.are (the intersection of) nonfo¡mal, intimate and nonserious. Spanishis used in settings which are (the intersection ot) urban and eithe¡ formal or,if nontbrmal, non-intimate. If the setting is nonrural, nonformal. intimatcand serious, the choice of language depends on other variablcs: laDguagcorder (i.e. which was the mother tongue), language proficiency ancl scx(Rubin 1968). Here the situational crite¡ia are Jxtrémily mixed. Gencr¡t-izations of this kind involve the relating oI situation types ,upward, to thcgeneral 'context of culture', in the sense in which that term was useil bvValinowski ( 1923.).

Typically in such 'macro-level' descriptions the concern is with com-¡runities where there is bilingualism or multilingualism, or at least sornctbrm ofdiglossia. The shift that takes place is between languages, or bctwccrr'high' and 'low' (classical and colloquial) varieties of the same langt¡agc; irntlthis is seen to reflect certain broad categories of situational va¡iatrlc. l.hcsituational features that determine'code shitt'may themselves bc highlyspecific in nature; for example Gorman. studying rhé use of English. Swirhilia¡d the vernacular by speakers of eight of Kenya's major languagcs. lorrrrrlthat 'Swahili is characteristically used more frequently thin Englislr ilconversations with fathe¡s and less f¡equently in conversations witlt silrlirrlls.although there are exceptions . - .' (1977,21 3) - exceptions whiclr wr.¡ r, ¡¡ ¡

turn partly relatable to the topic of the conversation.It is the relative impermanence of these situational factors whiclr l(.r(ls to

the phenomenon of 'code-switching', which is code shilt i¡ctrrrlizcrl rr.,;rprocess within the individual: the speaker moves from one cotlc t() l r tr,llr(.r ,

and back, more or less rapidly, in the course of daily lifc, irr(l oll( ¡r rr tlri.course of a single sentence. Gumperz (1971) describcs cor[. sl¡rlt ,llrrlcode-switching as the expression of social hierarchy ilr its vrrIior¡s l{tllrr.,,notably caste and social class. The verbal repefioire ol t hc spcrr lir.r . lr rs r'or i.¡rotential, is a function of the social hierarchy and ol h is own ¡r llrt r. ir ¡ it I rv lr ilcthc paÍicular context of interaction, the social-hie¡arch icir I l)r.()l)c f tics oI tlr(.situation, dctermine, within limits set by other variablcs (irDil irlwrrys irlLrwing fbr thc individual's rolc discretion; there is pcrs()nll irs wcll lrs tlruls-ircli()D¿rl switching, in Gum¡rerz's tcrms), thc selcction tl)¡l llc ll]irkcs l¡rrrrwilhin t lrirt lcpcrtoilc.

IIcncc lhis l)itrlicr¡l¡r cotrccpt ol lr 'c<ttic', in llrc scrrsc ol Iirngrrrrgc orlirngrrirgc v;rIicly cocxistirrr.: willl ()tller lltnguiu.lcs or lirrrgrtlrge v¡rrir.,lies i¡r ¡r( t t r r r I I r I i r r

1 I r r i r I l¡rrrl nrultirli;rlcclirl) socir.,tv. sl¡rlt tlritl llle irrrlivirlrrrl ty¡rit.rrlly

66 A socioser¡iotic interpretation of language

controls more than one code, extends naturally and without discontinuity tothat of code as social dialect - dialectal variety in language that is related tosocial structure and specifically to social hierarchy. The situation may

determine which code one selects, but the social structure determines whichcodes one controls. The limiting case would be an ideat diglossia in whichevery member has access to both the superposed or'high'variety and one

regional or'low'variety. In general, however, the speaker's social dialectrepertoire is a function of his personal caste or class history.

'I'heoretically a social dialect is like a regional dialect, in that it can be

treated as invariant in the life history of the speaker. This in fact used to be

regarded as the norm. [n practice, however, it is misleading; as Labovremarks in this connection (1970a, 170): 'As fa¡ as we can see, there are nosingle-style speakers.' Labov ¡efers to 'style shift' rather than 'code shift',understanding by this a shift in respect of certain specified variables that is

governed by one particular situational restraint, namely the level of for-mality. The variables he finds are grammatical and phonological ones, such

as the presence or absence ol bc in copular constructions, e.g. he lis)wildlnegative concord, as displayed in the music-hall Cockney sentence l dor',suppose you don't know nobody what don't want to buy no dog, or itsabsence;0 v. rd v. I in initial position, e.g. in rrtin k; plus or minus postvocalicr, etc. Labov's work has shown that one cannot define a social dialect, at leastin an urban context, except by having recourse to variable rules as well as

categorical rules; in other words, variation must be seen as inherent in thesystem. Labov's own earlier definition of an u¡ban speech community, as a

group of speakers sharing the same linguistic attitudes, which he arrived at

after finding that speech attitudes were more consistent than speech habits,could therefore, in the light of his own studies ofvariation, be revised to read

'a group of speakers showing the same patterns of variation' - which means,

in turn, reinstating its original definition as a group of speakers who share

the same social dialect. since social dialect is now defined so as to includesuch variation (cf. Wolfram 1971).

However, as Labov remarks, although'there are a great many styles andstylistic dimensions. ..all suchstyles can be rangedaLong a single dimension,measured by the amount of qttention paid to speech' (1970a). Hence, forexample, the five stylistic levels that are postulated in order to show tt¡.r

variation in postvocalic r: casual speech, careful speech, reading, word lists

and minimal pairs. In other words the type ol linguistic variation that is

associated with these contexts, through the 'amount of attention paid tospeech', is itself largely homogeneous; it can be represented in the lorm olpoints along a scale of deviation f¡om an implied norm, the norm in th is citsc

being a prestige or'standard'form. The speaker is not switching betwccnalternative forms that are equally deviant a¡d thus neutral with rcgartl tttprestige norms (contrasting in this respcct with rtrral §Pcirkcrs in (l¡:tlcct

boundary areas). Hc is switching [)clwccrr vitt.iitttts that ltt'c vitlttc-cltitrgeti:they have diflcrcntial vtlucs irr lltc s()ci¿ll syslcr¡l. l'llis by rro l¡¡cillls r¡cces

sirrily inr¡rlics 1lt it I t ltc so-crtllcrl 'Pt r'sl igc' lirt'ttts it t e tttost lt iglt ly vltlrrctl lo r irll


groups in all contexts (Labov 197 Oa,2O4), but simply that the effect of suchvariation on linguistic change cannot be studied in isolation from the socialsystem which determines the sets of values underlying the variation.

-1.4 Discussion of language and social structure usually centres around theinfluence of social structure on language; but in Labov's perspective anysuch effect is marginal, in terms of the linguistic system as a whole. 'The greatmajority of linguistic rules are quite remote lrom any social value'; 'socialvalues are attr¡buted to linguistic rules only when there is variation' (1970a,204 5). ln other words, there is interaction between social hierarchy andcertain teatures of the dialectal varieties that it gives rise to, such that theseleatu¡es are the object of variation; but no general principles relatinglanguage and language variety to the social order.

Such principles are to be found, in a very dilferent perspective, in the workof Bernstein. Here the social structure, and social hierarchy, is shown to berelated to variety in language; not to social dialect, however, but to register.This distinction is a fundamental one. Whereas social dialects are differentgrammatical and ¡rhonological representations of a semantic system, regis-ters are different semantic configurations (leaving open the questionwhether they are de¡ived from identical semantic systems or not). HenccBernstein's tbcus of attention is the relation of social structure to mean ing -that is, to the meanings that are typically expressed by the members.

Be¡nstein (1971) has drawn attention to principles of semiotic organ-ization governirg the choice of meanings by the speaker and their interl)rc-tation by the hearer. These he reters to as'codes'; and there is a considerablesource of confusion here, as the same term 'code' is being used in raclicallydiffercnt senses. The codes control the meanings the speaker-hearer attctr(lsto (ci. Cicourel's 'socially distributed meanings'). In terms of our gcnclirlpicture, the codes act as determinants ofregister, operating on the selcctioof meanings within situation types: when the systemics of languagc llrt.ordered sets of options that constitute the linguistic system - are activittc(l l)ythe situational determinants of text (the field, tenor and mode, r>r whtrtevr..rconceptual framcwork we are using), this process is regulated by tltc erxiL.s.

A unique feature of Bernstein's work is that it suggests ltow tltc s()(.illstructure is represented in linguistic interaction. According to Bc lstc in. tlreessential element governing access to the codes is the family rolc syslc r, I lrrsystem of role relationships within the family; and he finds two nririll tyl.]es.the positional role system, and the personal role system. In thc lot.rrrcr. tltcpart played by the member (for example in decisionrnakirg) is largcly irfunction ol his position in the family: role corresponds to ascrit¡ctl st¡l us. l¡lthe latter, it is more a function of his psychological qualitics irs irrr inrlivitlrrirl;here status is achicvcrl, irrrtl typicrrlly there are anlbiguitics ol r.olc. 'l he twotypcs arc liruntl in irll sociirl clitsscs, l)ut si:cti()¡)s ()l'lllc ¡trirkllc clirss ll¡vorrlt llc pe rso¡¡-()r icr l( r I lv¡r'r. rtt tr I \l r rrtt,llv lx)sil i()rti rl lrr ll¡ ilics ¡r re lirrr tl tltir itr lyit¡ llre ltlwct'wotltirr)l('lil\',,llrrr\ tlr( r( i\ir ¡rl( ( lt.fllrrtI lor lltr't.llur.l ol sot.it¡lcllrssorr I r r r r 1¡ r r r r

¡ '.r' , \ rir llrt ¡rrlr'r rr'lirlror¡ ,rl r lir',,,,rrrrl ltr ¡t lilv lvPt..

68 A sociosemiotic interpretation of language

Bernstein postulates two variables within the code: elaborated versusrestricted, and person-oriented versus object-oriented. The idealizedsociolinguistic speaker-hearer would cc¡ntrol equally all varieties of code;there is of course no such individual, but the processes of socialization of thechild do demand and normally Iead to - some degree of access to all. Itappears however that some extreme family types tend to limit access tocertain parts of the code system in certain critical socializing contexts: astrongly positional family, tbr example, may orient its rnernbers away fromthe personal, elaborated system in precisely those contexts in which this typeof code is demanded by the processes of formal education, as education is atpresent constituted - which may be a contributory factor in the stronglysocial-class-linked pattern ofeducational failure that is lound in Britain, theUSA and elsewhere.

It is important to avoid reifying the codes, which are not varieties oflanguage in the sense that registers and social dialects are varieties oflanguage. The relation of code to these other concepts has been discussed byRuqaiya Hasan, who points out that the codes are located 'above' thelinguistic system, at the semiotic level (1973, 258):

While socialdialect is defined by reference to ifs distinctive formal proper ties.the code is delined by rel'erence to its semantic properties . . . the semanticproperties of the codes ca¡ be predicted from the elements of social structurewhich, in Iact, give risc to them. This raises the concept'code'to a more generalIevel than that of language variety; indeed there arc advantages in regarding therestricted and thc elaborated codes as codes of behaviour, where the word'behaviour'covers both verbal and nonverbal behaviour.

The code is actualized in language through registcr, the clustering olsemantic features according to situation type. (Bernstein in fact uscs thcterm 'variant', e.g. 'elaborated variant', to refer to those characteristics of ¿r

register which derive from the choice of code.) But the codes themselves aretypes of social semiotic, symbolic orders of meaning generated by the socialsystem. Hence they transmit, or rather control the transmission o[, thcunderlying patterns of a culture and subculture, acting through the primarysocializing agencies of family, peer group and school.

At this point we can perhaps set up some sofi of a model i¡ which thclinguistic system, and the social system in its restricted sense of soci¿rl

structure, are represented as integral parts of the wider reality of the soci l

system in the more all-embracing sense of the term. F'or analytical purposcswe will add a third component, that of'culture' in the sense of the ideologiclland material culture, to serve as the source of speech situations and situuti()types. Malinowski's context of culture (and context ol situirtion) is tlrcproduct of the social structure together witll tlle culturc in th is linr ite(l scnsc iso are Fishman's domains. Figurc 4 (abovc thc linc) atlcnlpls lo l)rcscnl inschematic lirrrr thc analytic rclirtions thirl wc lrirvc scl ul).

1.-5 Nirlrrritlly llre rc iir( ()lhcr'(onrlxrr(nl\()l r\(xi()lirllli\ti( llr('orywlriclr


are not included in this summary. Among other things, a sociolinguisrictheory implies a theory of text: not merely a methodology of text déscrip_tion, but a means of relating the text to its various levels of meaning. ln vanDijk's (1972) account of a 'text grammar', text is regarded as ,continuousdiscourse' having a deep or macro-structure ,as a whole,and a su¡face ormicro-structure as a sequence of sentences; a set of transformation rulesrelates macro- to micro-structures. In other words, text is the basic linguisticunit, manifested at the su¡face as discourse. It cannot be describecl bv meanso[ sentence gram ma rs.

+rrr t(t!

Flg.4 Schomalb ropresenlalion ol lan(¡u¡go as social somiotic, and child,s modo olrr)coss lo it

adult linsuittic sysrem:

rexicc | *-,.,,-,o,"---. I r,---""phono¡osy I coñponeñG:

=-lzlclr-l§ | Él !f tÉt


Now the last point is worth un<lerlining The-notion of the text as a

suoer-sentence is essentially comparable to that of the sent!'nce a\ a super-

pttnem.l it ignores the essánrial lact that [he two ilre related by rcillr¿ilTlon'

I.iiv'ti.. ri.-¡"ue uclopt",l here the view of the text as a semantic unit'

irresoective of size. with \entences (and other gramm¡licijl unit'¡ as the

;.;üi';;"";',:íñ" .'*"ii"i pi"t'rtm' then' is tñat of relatins' no'macro'

;;;;; li*.üt"t (which cliffer in size)' but one.levcl (srratum) to

another: of relating the text not only 'downwards' to the sentences which

,""rir" ii rrr, ,it"':ip*aros to o highá' teuet nt 'neani¡tg'

of which it is itself

;; ;;i;t"" ;t projection Tvfricattv' in a s.ciolinguistic context' this

;;i";.I;;;il.ttgiáal -eoniígs thai are rcrlizetl bv texts of €vervdav

;;;;;;,;;;,;;;t ap'i esp.cluttv ihose involving the text in. its.role in cul-

tural transmission; but these are not cssenlially dlfferent in kind frorn others

;;;;;.;.;;;;ii,"; (van Dijk \el2' 273rt; 'i L'bo' and waletzkv 1e67;"C;iil i;;i), t;ituaing "t'ita'"n''

narratives' antl even literarv texts'- i" *v ii"iJá.iolinguiltics implies a thcory of text is to say no more than

that it implies a linguistic tneorvl'ne w15lr Á;'et¡ ttre-1.'^"].1'::l:'-""t "soccifvins both svstem and process' in Hjclmstcv's scnse of the.tcrms' at all

ffi,lili: i;;""'iüoii it'"" '""'""ces' clauses and so on which rorm thc

-"i"ii]' J .r"tváuy iing,itti.,-ini"-'u"tion (material that is already' of

."lrr", irgi,r1, ir,í*rr.u, án"" it tan be referrcd to in these.terms) are to be

i;ü;;i"? d"ih "s

realizations and as instanccs; as the realization of mean-

inss which are instances oftne rT e-aning potential The meaning potential is a

ilil::iñ".*iiriiir-*""'üi' "r ""^i i' in tt'" Ia§t resort 'l:'.

tu"'11:::l

U"i"J.r"f,'.. t. t"laie the texi to the functional component§ of the semantrc

system, ideational, intcrpersonal and textual (tlr othcr such frame of reler-

;;.;).''ñ;;" il;.,ionui "o,npon"nts

prouide the chan¡el wherebv thc

underlying meanings are pr()Jected onio the text' via the scmantic con-

ri*ri.ii"r",,¡", wc ic calling registers lshall not colnpli:il: ll:cxpositx)nir"rii.. iv itv.g,o in.luae in-it Jp"cific rc fere nce to the various,o-ther orders

;;;";"í;,iidt"ry. psychokrgiJal anrl so forth' that are Projectcd on«) thc

semantic svstcm and thereby onto the textr But I should-like to add onc

#;:';i;:'":'':;,;;" ;i;t'¿ iht"oncerns thc learning-orlanguage bv the'

child. as this proces upp"u" in it'" tiiht of a sociolinguistic interPretati()n oI

languagc ,.lcuelopme nt (Halliday la75a)'

1.ó A child learning his mother tongue is constructing a mcaning potcntill:

that is, he is constructing u '"tuntii sYstem' togethcr with its rcalizatiotls'

il;;;;;";. t.;;.io tu[" ptutt in thrcc phase s' "f

which rhe ¡niddlc.rtc ts

functionallv transiti.rnar. rnc Jrá u"gin'iel"'" I) by dcvclopirrg a sc nr iot ie

;?;il;;.;;;n'it-"* ot'i"'¿ f'r.nr thc ¡dult linstri'rie svstc.r rnirr

surrounds him; it is a languagc whosc clenrcnts itrc sitllplc eott

1 Scc in ihi§ connecti(ln Zt¡nrthor'\ chillllClfli/illi(!ll ol lltÚ(|i(vil| |n)('ll! ( lt)7,,. l7l): .N(ll|1

hrcuscs sonl lcs tcrl!s .¡ f ,,". ¡.' ¡t"i r""tl rr'rr\' xi'itll rrrx lk t'r¡ ¡¡¡r(' l(r \oI'tk llr ' rlrr¡¡rrrr

rl)s()lLtnrenl. irrr ooirrl(l-(\lorrr|cr.r",'i""'firlil"'In(\rlrrr lt\(ll(l\rh l'rtrlr' ( i\llr'r¡r

-'',,1'1.r'tl ',,r ri.,¡r l"rr'lrrrrn rrr''l 'l' l'r I'n 'rr rrrr 'l¡ I rh

Sociological aspects of semantic change 7l

tent/expression pairs, having rneaning in certain culturally defined andpossibly universal functions. Thcse functions can be enumcrated tentativclyas follows: instrumental, rcgulatory, interactional, personal, heuristic, irl-aginative. Figure 5 shows Nigel's protolanguage at 10j months (Halliday1975a). Such expressions owe nothing to the ¡nother tongue; this is thl: stagcat which, in rnany fblklores, the child can talk to animals and to \pirils.but adults cannot join in.

Then comes a discontinuity, round about l8 months: a point whcrc thcchild ceases to recapitulatc phylogeny and begins to adopt the adult modcl.From now on thc spccch around him, the text-in-situation which is a morc 0r'lcss constant fcaturc of his waking environment, comes to determinc lrislanguagc developmcnt. Hc is embarked on a mastery of thc adult syslcnt,which has an additir¡nal lcvel of coding in it: a grammar (including a vo-cabulary), intermediate between its meanings and its sounds.

Functionally, howcver, the¡e is no discentinuity; language continucs tofunction for thc child in thc same contcxts as before. But the intcrpolation ol'a grammatical system, besides vastly increasing the number of possihlcmcanings which the system is capable ofstoring, also at the same timc opcnsup a new possibility, that of functional combination: it bccomes possiblc tomcan morc than one thing at oncc. How does the child help himself ovcr thisstagc? Nigcl did it by generalizing from his function set an op¡r,rsiliorrbctween language as doing and language as learning: the prag¡natic Iuncti()nvcrsus thc mathctic function, as I called it. In situational terms. thc praA-matic is that which demands some (vcrbal or nonverbal) rcsponsc: thcmathetic is self-sufficient and does not r¿quire a response. Nigcl hitp¡rnetlto make this distinction totally explicit by means of intonation, producing ir llpragmatic uttcrances on a rising tone and all mathctic oncs on a falling t()nc ithat was his particular strategy. But the image of language as hirving :r

pragmatic and a mathctic potential may reprcsent cvery child's opcratiorrirlrnodel of the s)stem at this stag(.

Probably most children enter Phase II of the language-learning ¡rrrcessrvith somc such two-way functional orientation, or grid; and this lunct iorrrrlgrid, we may assumc. acts selectively on the input of text-in-situal io r r. ¡rs ir

sc¡nantic filtcr. rcjectingthosc particulars that are not interpretablc irr leIrrrrol itsclf, and acccpting those which as it were resonate at its own [uncli,rrri¡llicquencies. lt is perhaps worth stressing here, in view of thc prevrrilirr¡1notion of unstructurcd or degenerate input, that the utteranccs tlre cl¡ilrll¡cars around him arc typically both richly structured and highly grrrrrrnrirtic¿rl, as wcll as being situationally relevant (cf. Labov l970rr); tlrcclrild docs not lack lor evidence on which to build up his me¿lning l)()lc -

lirl.lrr l)hirsc II thc child is in transition k) thc adult system. Hc has ntirstclcrl

tlrt. prirrei¡rle ()l ltn itrtcrmcdi¿rtc. lcxicogrammatical level of coding; trnrl hcl¡rrs lrlso nlrslerctl thc plinci¡llc of clial<tgtrc. nilmcly the atloptirrrr. irs-ri¡ltttttr. trl itttrl ¡¡(\'el)lirncc (()r n()n-¡cccplilrlcc) ol eontrnunicirlivc t'ok.s.rrl¡¡r'lr irrc rotirl lolr's ol ir sPccilrl kintl. ll¡ost llrirl (ont( iuto beinA o¡rly

I

72 A sociosemiotic interpretation of Ianguage

through language. The semiotic substance of the pragmatic/mathetic dis-tinction, between language as doing and language as learning, has now beenincorporated into the grammar, in the form of the functional distinctionbetween interpersonal and ideational in the adult system. These latter arethe 'metafunctions' of the adult language: the abstract components of thesemantic system which correspond to the two basic extrinsic functions oflanguage (those which Hymes calls 'social' and 'referential'; cf. above). Atthe same time the child begins to build in the third component, the 'textual'one; this is what makes it possible to create text, language that is structuredin relation to the context of its use (the 'context of situation'). These threecomponents are clearly distinct in the system, as sets ofoptions having stronginternal but weak external constraints.

Here is the source of the complex nature of linguistic 'function', whichcauses some difficulty in the interpretation of functional theories of lan-guage, yet which is a major characteristic of the adult semiotic. On the onehand, 'function' refers to the social meaning of speech acts, in contexts oflanguage use; on the other hand, it refers to components of meaning in thelanguage system, determining the internal organization of the system itself.But the two are related simply as actual to potential; the system is a potentialfor use. The linguistic system is a sociolinguistic system.

At this stage, then, the generalized functions which serve as the basis forvarious strategies whereby a child can learn the meanings of the adultlanguage gradually evolve through three stages. At first, they are al-ternatives: at (say) 18 months, every utterance is either one or the other(either malhetic or pragmatic). Then they become differences of emphasis:at (say) 21 months, every utterance is predominantly one orfheother (mainlymathetic/ideational but also pragmatic/interpersonal; or vice versa). Finallythey come to be combined: at (say) 24 months, every utterance is both (áol¿ideational ar?d interpersonal). What makes this possible is that both come tobe expressed through the lexicogrammatical system; the 'functions' havechanged their character, to become abstract components of the semantics,simultaneous modes of meaning each of which presupposes the presence ofthe other. And this apparently is what enables the child to structure the inputwhich he receives so that any one text comes to be interpreted as a com-bination ofthe same kind. To put this anotherway, being himself (at first) onany one occasion either observe¡ or intruder, he can grasp the fact that theadult Ianguage allows the speaker-indeed obliges him -to be bothobserverand intruder at the same time. When these processes of functional develop-ment are completed, the child has effectively entered the adult languagcsystem;the final phase, Phase III, consists in mastering the adult languagc.Phase III, of course, continues throughout life.

I have attempted to incorporate the developmental componcnts of tlrcsociolinguistic universe of discourse into figure a (p. 69); this is thc ¡rrrltbelow the horizontal line. The double vertical bar crosscr.rtlirrS th¡s line,towards the left, represents thc poinl ol rliscontirruily irr 1hc cx¡rlc.sil,rr,where the child l¡cgins to tilkc ovcr tlrc glanrnlrl irrttl l)lx)n()l()gv ()l llre ¡r(llrll

.9,-- d- !

E á;§ j =rg etlilisci E:;:."::3-P$rE$ EEFecraI HEee:Ér:-e;i:F¡!g

E ía a ! € I

PEEEÉi_9.: 6.E' E ¡ E E E .A F"

i.;Eaaéi;!ET.E-1.é P

= ó;;E Eb 535s E

á F Ll Lj áSilr:€3 1,ai'i¡qE

E ; si É É g it¡r:_:tttth9 HEIE | ¡ ;.,:!¿Erl*¡S-áá¡É9FÍ É: E E r ü E i E o= EEÉÉ I E + ! , 9É EEE§ É É É ; § 3LlLr§=

ttris;'-I e ó!6É.ElÉ2

95t;HE<'o3i3EHtóEcéEdlii

7,1 A sociosemiotic interpretation of language

language. In the content, there is a rapid expansion liom this point on - butno essential discontinuity.

2 Variation and change

2.-/ Much of the work referred to above embodies a concept of variation.Typically, this refers to variation betwecn diffe¡cnt forms oflanguage withina speech community: between languages or major sublanguages, betweendialects, and between speech styles (i.e. minor dialectal variants, in Labov'ssense of the term). If we distinguish terminologically between variety,meaning the existence of (dialectal, etc.) varieties, and variation, meaningthe movement between varieties (i.e. varicty as the state, variation as theprocess), then the individual speaker displays variation (fhat is. switches)undcr certain sociolinguistic conditions; in the typical instance, thcse con-ditions ¡elate to the level of formality (degree of attention paid to speech, inLabov's formulation), role relationships, topic of discourse and so on. Butthere may be variety without variation: this would be the idealized form ofthe situation studied in ¡ural dialectology, where dialects exist but membersdo not switch between them.

Just as there may be variety without variation, so also there may bevariation without change. Labov has demonstrated the existence of this kindof stable variation, where the variants eithcr are not charged with socialvalue o¡ else are the object ofconflicting values which, as it wcrc, canccl eachother out - a low-prestige form may also have solidarity function, perhaps.But whilc variation does not always imply change, it is usually presumed tobe a fcature of sociolinguistic change change that is related to socialphenomena - that it is preceded by, and arises out of, variation, suchvariation being a product of the interaction of Ianguage with the socialsystem. Labov's formulation is as lbllows (1970a, 205):

In the course of change, there are inevitably variable rules, and these areas ofvariability tend to travel through the system in a wave-like motion. The leadingedge of a particular linguistic change is usually within a single group, and withsuccessive Senerations the newer fo¡m moves out in wider circles to othergroups- Linguistic i¡?¿1¡r'aro¡J which show social distribution but no style shift Ii.c.varicty without variation] rcprcscnt carly stagcs of this process. Marke¡s whichshow both stylistic and social stratification rcprcscnt the dcvelopment of socialreaction to the change and the attribution of social value to the variants conccrned. .§tereotypes, which have risen to full socialconsciousncss, may rcprcscntolde¡ cases of va¡iation which may in fact have gone to completion; or they mayactually reprcseút stable oppositions of liúguistic forms supportcd by two oppos-ing sets of underlying social values.

Taken as a whole, linguistic change involvcs, in Labov's wortls. 'oscillationbetween intcrnal prcssurcs and intcraction with tlrc soci¡l syslc¡r'; i1

includcs. but is not lirritctl to. changc ol ir'sociolirrgrrislic'ki¡ltl. lhc irrtL'r'¡rirl

¡-rlcsstrtcsLirbovsccs-irsolltct lirtgtrisls lrirv( (lo¡r(.ir\ir'l)r(x(ss()l slllrclrrrirI


generalization', to be explained as a kind of grammatico-scmantic equilib-rium in which 'there is inevitably some other structural change to com_pensate for the loss of information involved' (1970a, 183). An examplegiven is that, in Trinidad English, the past tense gaye was replaced by ihopresent form giy?, and thcrefore the form do glve was introduced to dis_tinguish present from past: instead of I give/I gave, the same system isrealizetl as I do give,l givc.

The assumption appears to be that, while sociolinguistic change takesplace in thc expression, at the grammatical and phonological levels, it cannotaffect the contcnt: the semánfic system re mains unchanged. (Sociolinguisticchanges in the expression are usually presented not as cñanges in the systembut as microscopic changes affecting certain elements of the system, theimplication being that it is the purely internal mechanisms that bring aboutchange in the system - including thc change that is required to regulate thebalance which has becn impaired by socially conditioned changeJ afféctingits elements. But, as Labov himself has pointed out elsewhere (1971), it i;difficult to make a rery cle¡rcul di¡linction bclueen lhc system and itselements.) If this is to be understood in the limited sense that semanricchanges are not brought about by accidental instances of morphological orphonological syncretism, it presumably applies whether ór not suchinstances a¡e interpreted as the outcome of social processes; this question isclearly beyond our present scope. But if it is taken morc generally to meanthat there are no other forms of linguistic change involving relations bet-ween the social system and the linguisric system, this would seem open tochallenge, since it excludes the possibility of changes of a socioscmantickin d.

Semantic change is an area in which no very clear boundary can bemaintained between change that is intcrnal and change that is sociallyconditioned, although the two are in principle distinguishable; it bears ourHoenigswald's observation (1971.473) that 'The internal and the externalfactors in linguistic change are densely inteftwincd, but not. . . incxtricablyso.'Thc existence of semantic variety is traditionally taken for granted inlanguage and culture studies; but the instances that can be cited oaculturallyconditioned semantic change are quite limited in their scope. These changcsare typically fairly microscopic, affecting specific subsystems, especiallythose concerned with the linguistic expression of social status and ¡ole: áwell-known cxample is Friedrich's (1966) study of Russian kin terms, relat-ing the changcs in the number and kind of kinship te¡ms in general use tochanges in thc structurc of social relationships in Russian society. Semanticfield thcory, which takcs the thamp de significatbn as the constant andexamincs thc changcs in thc mcrning of thci elemcnts of thc subsystemwithin it, also lc¡rcls itscll to sociocultural cxplanations (Tricr,s classic ex-amplc 1)l thc Iicld ol 'knowiog'in ¡nctlicval Gcrman). But it seens unlikelythirl rvc slxrrrkl cx¡)cel l() Iitl(1. ilt lhe scrrlilnlic lcvcl. .sociolinguistic,changc.srll'lt r¡lole gcnelrrl ot nritctoseollic ki¡ttl.

llo\!( v( r. il is rrol srr rrrrrclt rntrjol shills irr the lin¡rristit systcr¡t I hirl ir( ilt

76 A socioserniotic interpretation of language

oucstion. as linguistic changcs u hich relate to general features of the social

-'"r-ñ ^r t^ qnciolosic¿ll constructs that have iheir own validity apart from

,'"1;i ;::;" i; ;"i;;l :llt i t*:::xHj,l[:if:':x]""f iillll;lll[ xl!two tvDcs of fairlY Pervaslve se'm

:;;.,fJ",;"";;;ii¿nl,ii'ut tt'ot..oÁ'tomináhere lhetirstisIhclarge-scale

int¡oductionOfnewvocabulary,a"inperiodsofrapidtechnicalinnovation;iil;;";'i;'.h;;g. in whor whorf caitLd 'fashions ol speaking" or scmantic

tt'iit; ,,rr, .f these processcs is cha¡acterized by thc appearance in the

,,;";;;i ; iáig. n'*u"' of previouslv non-exisre nt l!11e^¡""ine¡,.l;i"..;;'r.;.*;;'f. ¡¿¡¡lrns ancl s'r [.rth' rcalized b1 a \ariety ol means rn

thc lexicogrammatical structurc intt'¿¡nn but not limitcd t() - the crea¡ion

,;i;;;;ri;rr. (T() call thi\ p'ot"t''inñ"duttion of ncw vocabularv' is a

Lli."i¡t* r,ít"irration I rathir iii' thc introduction of ncw thing-mean ings'

which may or may not be cxpres'scd bv new lexical elements ) One maior

.,rrr.. .,ii"tig¡, into thi: prt'ces' is púrnned sociolinguistic changc' in the

pcneratconte'xtollunguog"ptunning.Thckcyconceptinlanguageplanning,"i,;;i',:i:;;;;i,;rinfu i'ng'og" "tt is not entirclv clcar in.uhich sense

:1";;i,;: i,;"i;s'Ñ.1 rtt'* 'ri"t;i irnplv that theic are underdcvcloped

r,.-^,,..^. I in whic¡.nr. n., ,loubt thty rhtt'ttt Ut rc[errcd t'r as'dcvel'rping'

i:ffi:li:., lt,Jü" i'"e';t"'ai;tl"tion betwcen devcloped languages and

others is a vcry dubi 'u' on"¡' o"ht'uld the tcrm bc intcrpreted rather in the

scnse of developing a tilm, urinling out what is alre acll ,tare

ntly there?

;;;;;;.;hri;;v t ' 'a"u'topinfo i"nBuase ' tvPicallv rL'rer'i Y":1!:]11:.-;;;:i;;.;h. crL:ation oI nüw re ims bv 'omc ucel:Y :y'h as a commrssron

;;t"il;;i;;rl;t at Ie ast in the lours" of 'om"

ufficiullv sponsored activitv

;;;;;;;;;?A"ction of rcfe¡ence w.rks and textbooks- ^

what is thc essenriul nutur. oiru.t "hange,

when viewed from a linguistic

.;á;;i;;ti;r*cn ( I966) '"itit in it ot ':"luuoration of function" and thc

::t;il,';":.;¡i"p*"Áuni'' ' runctional one: the lansuase is to runc-

iirt"i"'r"*'tiir"É', typ"r' oi"itunti'''n to which it .has previouslv bccn

irr"¿"p,.a ftti. i,-c"'iuinly u t"e pe"ptcti" Bu¡.it.,is rcmarkablc how

ri,ir- i. r,.r t¿nñwrr rhout thc ,rof.'"t" in'nluttl' especialll ahout thc nalurirl

::::,::1":':il;:ñ;;i ;J;;ii,, in non-westcin ranguages rherc is it

í""i, "-""ti. ii;,ututt ..1n technical innovation in Europcan languagcs'

tracing lhe developmcnt ol 'nOutitiuf

and other tcrminokrgics (c g Wexlct

i';;;.';;;" ";,;f"tl"n or e'J"i''

'áilwav terminokrgv); and on tcchnical

vocabularies as they are touná in existencc in languit¡1cs cvcrywhcrc (lirlh

;";;i;;; "€. Fiake 1961; Conklin 196tt; Basr) 1967) Bur stu(lic§ ol

innovation in non-Europcan i";;"'g"t arc rrrc A nrrtrthlc cxant¡rlc is lllt''r.i.r,r^lrrirri;l;

t r o6z) *utt onit ñtgu' inve stigrttittg h.rr I hc ¡re nrhc Ls ol

irtrni"g.ir.ht"g,t"d*c"'ingc''nmttrítitsirlc'rrp'rrlrtcrr!'\\ llrir)A-rlr(¡rrlilrll\

- ncw techuiqucs, n"* upptt"it't ti'"1 "t¡t'i¡'u'tni int() llrcir outt littgttislic

rcs()urces.

.lI l'l¡isle¡rlslsillotll(sctrttlrl IrtIttIitIII IIIIII !tl l:r\ll¡rrll\r)l r¡rt'rrl'irl¡1 llir

Sociological aspects ol semantic changc 77

often held, at least irnplicitly. that thc semantic styles associated with thevarious rcgistcrs of the 'world languages', such as technical English orRussian, or political French, arc inscparable from the terminologies, andhave to be introduced along with them whercver they travel. Certainly it is acommon reproach against speakers and writers using a newly created ter-minology that they tend to develop a kind of'translationesc', a way ofmeaning that is derived frorl English or whateyer sccond language is thcmain source of innovation, rather than from the language they are using. Nodoubt it is easier to imitate than to create in thc developing languagcsemantic configurations which incorporate the new tcrminological matterinto existing semantic styles. But this is not cxactiy the point at issue. There isno reason to expect all ideologies to bc modclled ot thc semiotic structurc ofStandard Average Eurtrpean; thcre are other modes of meaning in literuturethan ths poctry and thc drama of Rcnaissance Europe. and it will not besurprising to find difftrcncus in other gcnrcs also, including the various ficldsof intcllcctual activity. This is not to suggcst that the scmantic styles rcmainstatic. Thc alternativc in thc develo¡rrncnt ofa languagc is tlot that ofcitherbccoming European or staying as it is; it is that ()f becoming European orbeconring somcthing clse, more closcly following its own existing patterns olcvolution.

lt is very unlikcly that onc part of thc scmantic systcm would remaintotallv isolated from anothcr; u'hen ncw meanings are being crcated on alargc scalc. we shouid cxpcct sonre changes in thc fashions of spcaking. tt isla¡ from clear how thesc takc place; but it is cert¿i¡ly quitc inadequatc teinterpret thc innovations simply as changcs in subject mattcr. Thc changesthat arc brought about i¡r this rvay involvc media, genres. participants andparticipant relations, illl thc components of the situation. Ncw rcgisters arccrcatcd. u,hich activatc new alignments and configurations in thc functionalcomponents of the scmantic system. It is through tllc intermediary of thesoci¿tl structure that thc semantic change is brought about. Se¡nantic stylc is alunction of social relationships and situation types gcneratcd by thc socialstructure. If it changes, this is not so much bccause of what pcoplc arc nou'speaking about as bccause of who thcy are speaking to, in whrt cir-cumstanccs, through what media and so on. A shift in the firshions olspeaking will bc bettcr understood by retcrencc to changing p¿rttcrns ()1'

\()cial intcraction and social relationships than by the search fitr a direct linkl)ctwccn thc Ianguagc and thc material culture.

-1..i Onc phcnorlcn()n thitt shows up thc existencc of an cxternal or'socirrlinguistic'l¡ctol irr scnta¡ttic change isthatofarcal affinity. At¡dulaziz( I

()7 I ) hirs rlr rrrr rr ll lc ¡ll ¡()n lo t hc arcal scm¿tntic cffect whcrcby speakcrs ofI ¡rsl Aliicl¡r¡ l:rrrgrtlrges. r,thcthc¡ thcsc arc rcl¿¡tcd to Sw.ahili or not. findSrrrrhili cirsitr to hlrntlle thrrn lrnglish bcc¡usc ol lhc vcry high tlcgrce ofrrlcrlri tsl¡ttitl)ilily b(.lwc(ll S\\'illtili ¡rr¡tl llrcir orvrr l¡ngUagc. Gunrpcrz andWilsort s rrcr't)r||lt ( l') / l ) r)l tlrt, st.r|lrrnti( itlt.rrtitv ol Mlr¡.;rll¡i, K¡rrlrirtla andll¡rltt ¡ts rllr¡klrr rrr rr tr'¡iiorr r¡l Sor¡tl¡ l¡rli¡ ¡rlonll tlx. l\llultllli Ki¡ltit(lit

r¡

7il A sociosemiotic interpretation of language

border is cspecially rcvealing in this respect. Since such instances are typ-ically also characterized by a high dcgree of phonological affinity, theidealized casc ofareal alfinity may be characterized in Hjelmslevian terms as

one in which the content systems are identical and the expression systemsare idcntical; what differs is sinrply the encoding of the onc in the other, the()ne poinl of a¡bitrarincss in the linguistic systcm.

It sccms possiblc that the key to some of the problcms of areal affinity maybc found in a deeper undcrstanding of creolization, in thc light of recentstuclics. The devclopment of areas of affinity is itself prcsumably thc etTect ofa crcolization proccss, and hence it is not csscntially different tic¡m historicalcontact proces§es in general, but rather is a natural conscquence of them. Inthe samc way thc large-scLlle scmantic innovation ¡efcrred to above can also

[]e see n as ¿]n instance of creolization, onc leading to thc development of newIrnes r¡f scmantic affinity which no Ionger follow areal (regional) patterns.Neustupn! ( I 97 t ), in an interesting discussion of linguistic distance in whichhe attempts to isolate the notion of'sociolinguistic distance', proPosed todcfine thc conditir¡n of'contiguity'in social rathcr than in geographicalterms. It is not easy to sec cxactlJ' what this meaüs; it cannot bc maintaineclthat a rcquirement tbr thc developmcnt of an area of affinity is a commonsocial structure, since. quite apart from the Phenomenon of large-scalctechnical borrowing (which is typically associatcd with the opposite situ-ation. but might be excluded from considcration here), in fact the mosldiverse social structures are to be found within regions of established lin-guistic alTinity. Yct some concept of a cQmmon social syste m. at some vcryabstract level, is presumably what is implied by the more usual but vagucassertion of a 'common cultute' as a concomitant ol areal resemblances.

At an], rate. arcal affinity is a fact. uhich demonstrates' even though itdocs not explain, that the semantic systems of different languages may bc

alike - and therelbre that they may bc less alike. There is often difficultyenough of mutual comprehension within one language, for examplc bct-ween rural and urban speakcrs, simply because one is rural and the otllcl'urban. 'l'he diachronic aoalogue to this areal affinity is presumably gcn-

erational alTinity; thc generation gap is certainly a semiotic one, and is

probatrly reflectcd i¡ the semantic systcm. We do not have thc same systcolas our grandfathers. or as ourselves when young. Linguists are accustonlc(lto leaving such questions in the hands of specialists in communicatiorl, nlits§

mcdia. pop culture and the likc; but they havc implications for the linguistir'syste¡n, and fbr linguistic changc. New forms of music, and ncw conlcxls (rl

musical pertbrmance, demand new instruments' though thesc arc rtcvet trlcoursc tot¿rlly ncw.

3 Meaning and social structure

-1../ Aswithothcllevclsolllrcli¡tAttislicsvsltllt,lltt ¡to¡¡ttltlcrrrlrlitirrttol lllt'sc¡Iltnlic syslcrtt is otrt ol t ll:ttt¡lt . l'll| s¡rr','ilir rl¡rllll( (tl lll( ( ll¡¡rlil( 5 lllilllltkr' ¡rlrtr'r'. itrtrl tllr'i¡ r( lirlir)ll l(r ( \l{ lllill Lrr lol'.. tllil\' lrr' ¡rri)¡r' tt llrlily


understood if we regard lhe semantic. \y\lem as being itselt the projec_tion (encoding, realization) of sorne higher t.r"t of "r-t.ulirguirtic mean_ing.

" From a_sociolinguistic viewpoint, the scmantic system can be detined as afunctional or function-oriented meaning potentiali ¿ ¡"t*oit of-Jption, fo,

the cncoding of some extralinguisr¡c semirrtic system o, ,yri"rni in t"r_, ofthe two basic components of mean ing rhat we hive callccl it . iá"áiinrul ,nathe interpcrsonal. In principle this higherJevel semiotic máy bc-viewed inth.e tradition of huma nist thoug_ht ¿ls a conceptual or ssg¡itire sys-tem, one oflntormatr,,n ahout thc rcal world, But ir mayequally be viewed asa semiolicof some other type. logical, i<leological, aésthetic-o¡ ,".iul. H.r" it i, t¡"social perspective that is relevant, the semantic ,ya,a_ u., ."oti-rution uf usocial semiotic; in the words of Mary Douglas (1-971, 3g9),-

lf we ask of any form of communication the-simple question what is bei¡gcommunicated? thc answe¡ is: infolmation from the social .vr1"¡,¡. 1.fr"exchanges which are being communicarecl constitute rhe ;; .;i;..Iuformation from thc social system has this properry, rhar ir is, typically,presenled in highly contexr-specific d,rses_ Whércas a ltgical *run,i.. rnybc a monosystem, a social semantics is and must be a poiy"syri.r, o r", of a",,of options in meaning, each of which is referablc ," u iií.n ,u.iui .ont"rt,situation type or dr¡main.Thc semantic system is an interface,.berwcen the (rcsr of the) linguisticsy-stem and-somc higher-order symbolic systcm. f, li u pr.r¡..ilnn. or."-uliz¿tion, c¡f the sociat system; ar rhe samc rir. ir ir;;;j;.:;;d'or,,r, o,realized by, the lexicogrammatical sysrcm. tt i, in rt,i, p!rri".ili" t¡ut t¡"sociolinguistic conditions of semantic changc may U".Jrn" ""ürrif,l".Let us illustrate the notion of a context-spécific iemanti". i.o. i*n ,.."n,studies. In both cases for thc sake of slmp[ilty f \vitt ctroos"

".., ,ln"11 ,"".ioptions,.sets which, moreover, form a iimpie ,u*onn_y. ff,J iiri ,, ,rnrn'I urncr ( 1973), somewhat modified. Tu¡nér, on tf,. Uu'ri. ,rin nriu". o¡invcstigations by Bernstcin and his colleague, in L;r¿;, innit.u.ts u

):)ll.l,,j:,i::l:-l]. lll,.:u,', type c,r.regulátive conrext;ithi; rh; ramity,¡r r\ ( rt\.1ng gc nc r¡ | care gorir..r of pare nlal.control sl ratcg¡ : .impc

ra tive.. .posi-ti,,rrirl'rrntl n(rsr)nal'. Fach oI thcse is rhen trrrtcr ruiáat.!ári..i.:irp"rr-l ¡ve' in11) 'thrcat oI loss of privilege. a nd 'rhreat of punirt rf"nif,-ooritinrul,irrto 'clisapprobation'. ,rulc-giving', .reparation_seet<ing;

"rj t"ori,lo."l¡x¡rlrr¡irlion'. pcrsonal, into ,rccognition of intcnr,unA:p"iiorri"rpfrnu_tirrrr'. Iigurctrshows1hcsystcmunrlcr.threutnt¡or,áfprluil""eii,i"r"ur"tlte ol'rlions thirl lli¡vc bccn shown t,) lru xv¡ilrble to ttre'mottre? wiá sefectsllris Iol¡r ol t,onlrol behi¡vir¡rrr

lr¡ ¡r.rl¡r lo slrru, lrow thesc ()l)tions lrre typically rcalizcd in the lexico_¡l¡irrrrrrllrliclrl sy\l(,¡ll. §,(.irrtlir.lrlt, llrr,c()ltlril)nli()n lhill

",,a1.,,rr,,fr.]r,u,f¡alllitl \llltrlut( ()l llt(. s(.nf(.ltcf (rr,li.¡crrc.r..s ,,,., ,,, ¡r,,r,,l r;,¡rt,. i,,'tt,,g"t,.


rejection: material process, Roget § 293 Departure or § 287 Recession:

Hearer you : Affected; Positive

command:'middle' type; imperative, jussive, exclusive

decision: either 'middle' type, or (rarer) 'non-middle' (active' Speaker

I : Agent); indicative, declarative

resolution: futuretense

obligation: modulation. neccssity

deDrivation: material process, benefactive, Roget § 784 Giving; 'non-

middle' type: (oPtional) Speakerl : Agent; Hearer you =Beneficiary; indicative, declarative; future tense; negative

Examples:

(l) you go on outside(2) you're going upstairs in a minute(3) I'll have to take you uP to bed(4) you're not going to be given a sweet/I shan't buy you anything

, reieclo' -..........-T ihréát .i toss +l

- I ot p,v,rege Loepn,arion ra)

I rhréár olI punishñenl

| [resorurion (2)

- I obliqal'on (3)

f d'saPprobaton

i I rue-sivrñg "'

I I .eparaton'seekns

1 L pos,ronar e¡Prañaton

I a,""onnn,on o, ,n,"nt

- I Personar eipl¿naton .

Sociological aspects of scmantic change 8l

'inform'or'elicit', rvhich are predominantly instructional. Figure 8 (p.85)shows some of the options unde¡ the 'directive' heading; the tbrm oI pre-sentation is adapted to match that of Turner.

The unma¡ked modal realization ofthe 'directive'catcgory is the impera-tive; but there a¡e ma¡kcd options in which the other moods occur. 'Pro-scribed action' ( 1 ) is a behavioural directive which may be realized throughimperativc, declarative or intcrrogative clausc types. Directivcs relating tonon-proscribed actions may bc (2) isolated exchanges (behavioural) or (3)parts of intcractions (procedural); thcy may be (4) requests, encoded in thcvarious modal forms, or (5) references to an action which ought to havc becnperformed but has not been, typically in past tense interrogativc. (Cl.Ervin-Tripp 1969, 56f1.)Examples:

(l ) don't rattle / what are you laughing at / somcone is still whistling(2,4) will you open the door? / I want you to stop talking now(2,5) did you open that door?(3,4) you must all stop writing now(3,5) have you finished?

These illustrations are, of course, very specific in their scope; but thcybring out the general point that, in order to relate the linguistic realization oIsocial meanings to the linguistic system, it is necessary to dcpart fr()m thctraditional monolithic conception of that system, at least at the semanticlevel, and to consider instead the particular networks of meanings that arcoperative in particular social contexts. How these various semantic systemscombine and reinforce cach other to produce a coherent, or reasonablycoherent, world yiew is a problem in what Berger and Kellner call thc'microsociology of knowledge'. In their analysis of the sociology of mar-riage, they interprct thc marriage relation as a continuing convcrsation, andobserve (1970, 61), 'In the marital conversation, a world is nof only built,but it is kept in a state of repair and ongoingly refurnished.' This is achievcdthrough the cumulative effect of innumerable microsemiotic encounters, i¡lthe course of which all the various semantic subsystems are brought intoplay.

3.2 Hymcs made the point several years ago that 'the role of language maydiffer from community to community'(1966, 116). Hymes was making adistinction bctween what he called two types of linguistic relativity: cross-cultural variation in the system (the fashions of spea king, or'cognitive styles'as hc callcrl thenr) and crosscultural variation in its uses.

But we should not press this distinction too hard. The system is mercly thcuscr's potcntial. ()r thc potential for use; it is what the speaker-hearcr'carrncan'. 'fhis scmirntic potenti¿ll we are regarding as one form of thc prt»jcclion ol his synrbolic l)ch¿rviour potential: the 'sociosemiotic' systcm. torrsc(ircinrirs's(I969)tcrnl.lnanygivencontcxtol usc a given situat iot'l typc,itt rt Air'e tt soci¡rlsl Iuctlrrc tlrcnrcnthqrdisposcsol'rrclwrrlksolo¡'rtions,sctsrtl

F¡9. 6

Taken as a whole the system reveals correlation at a number of points with

social class, as well as with other social factors; for example, in the inves-

iigation from which this is taken, significantly more middle-class mothers

itln *ort ing-ctass mothers selected the 'rule-giving' type of positional

control.The second example is taken from Coulthard et al' 1972' For a fullc¡

representation of this semantic network' see figure 7 (pp 82-3) from Halliday

1975c: see Sinclai¡ et al. lg7 2 tot afuller report This is a study of semantics in

theclaisroom. The socializingagentisthe school,where presumably rcgulativc

and instructional contcxts irc inscparably associatcd Thc ¡lttthols itrves-

tigated thc options oPcrl to tlrc tcacl'tct lirr t hc in itiitt ioll ol tlist ottt'st : Itc tlt ity

sicct'.lirc.i'. rvhiclr is Pretirnlin:rntly regttllrtive in ittlctlt' r'l llt llllr\ \( l('l

r

E.&E

s#iI¡¡El 9¡

I 6a, po

o I - E'E

; E Er' I

c5Po

E; 9

'6P9;§ E

:9 E;,3 E

;i €

;3 REp b

>ó' E6 d! s

::ix 6

E E: E99-ü:¡i!óÉ #P "I 38 .9

€ {BÉS EEñE I t;! rüEE E'T

tII

!

69

o ü D§ X'ó sc É E 3E 3 é 3ü¡+Éi L;;:;!oá6

,;¡o

I

E: § g

l¡lttt| - E l--......-----------J _

5 ,á *¡ E E

'6.Oi5ó-

l=/\ rt I lot - .e

* er * c fi sE €E §E;Ei S fr sg Eg E f¿_"E

= ,á 8s sg F I.t_t.t_r

-,9

rl

EO9 'i6

gP

I

.96I

.9

tt§ÉÉÉÉE 5EE g

¡ L-l.r _ t.

3p 6

E§3c é:EE= C

¡lII,l_t55= Á=

EE Eé

eo

dg

bE6a

I,

pd5¡

I

§

E

^0f1vB1s -]oBJ.Noo

Deprivat¡on:

Command:


Thrcat ol loss of ptiv¡legeRejectioñ: material process ('Deparlure, R 293; 'Recession', R 297); Hearer

you : [¡edium; positive

Sociological aspects of semantic change g5

semiotic alternatives, and these a¡e realized through the semantic system.From this point of vierv, as suggested in the last section, the semantic systemappears as a set of subsystems each associated with a particular domain, orcontext ol use. What we refer to as ,the system, is an abstract con_ceptualization of the totality of the use¡,s potential in actually occurringsituation types.

f beh¿vioura (,sot¿ted) l2)

Procedura (,nleracrional) {3 )

f ¡equesr (4r.................*l

pasrobr¡sa.on (5)

malerial process: benefactive ('Giv¡ng', R 784); Heareryo¿/ : Bene-ficiary (BecipienVClient); negat¡ve

middle; imperative: jussive: exclusive.Exi you go on upstairs; go up lo bed now

future /: in present / present ¡n presentEx: you're going upstairs; l'll take / l'm taking yor.¡ upstairs Lrejec-tionl; l'm ñotgoing to büyyou anything;you're notgoing to begivena sweel ldepr¡vat¡on l

modulat¡on: pass¡ve: necessaryEx; l'll have to take yoú upstairs; you ll have to go upsia¡rs lreiec-tionl; you won't have to have a sweet; I shan't be able to g¡ve youa sweet; next lime you won't be able lo go shopping with meLdeprivationl

Decision: indicat¡ve: declarative lelthe¡ middle o]' non-m¡ddle: active/passive,Speaker / : Agent (optional in passive); middle* ¡f reject¡on, non-middle* if deprivationl

i dtré'nva + u"t'o"o'o*'btd/ )

,I L "",.nno

p,oscfoed I

| ","ruuo"

Resolutioñ:

Obligation:

Authoritytigure:

Conditional:

'if':

'because'l

'or':

expl¡citreference to

repetition:

fhreat of pun¡shmentChaslisementr material process ('Punishment', R 972; Heaiet you = ¡redium; non-

middle: aclive,* Speaker/ = Agent; indicative: declarative; future /:¡n present; posit¡veEx: I'll smack you; you'll gei smacked

material process ('Punishment, R 972; Disapprobation', B 932lparas. beginn¡ng /epreherd. . ., sense of'verbal punishmentl;Hearct you : Medium; non-middle; 3rd person (father,* police-man*) = Agent indicative: declarative; future /: in present; positiveEx: the policeman wil¡ tell you off; Daddy'll smack you

'you do that'

hypotactic; condition in dependent claúse, threat in ma¡n clauseEx: if you do that, . . .

hypotactic; condition in main clause, threat in dependent clauseEx: don't / you mustn't do that because . . .

paratactic; condition in clause 1 , threat in clause 2Ex: don't / you mustn't do that or . . .

agal, in condilion L I next t¡ñe : if . . . aga¡n lEx: if you do that again, . . . i next time you do that . . . ; don't dothat again because / or . . .

Lexicogrammatical real¡zations of some categories of ControlStrategy'(see f¡9.7, 'imperative')

Numbers following Fl refer to numbered paragraphs in Foget's lhesau¡rs.* : typical lorm

Fig. 8

rvhich wc may interpret as scnriullic tlillcrcncesv¿tt'iclics of English (t.()llin 196(.))

,_ In othcr words, different groups of people tend to mean different things.

Hymes is undoubtedly right in recognizing crosscultural variation in thesystem, and it would not be surprising if we also find intracultural (i.c.cross-subcultural) variation. One may choose to separate this observationfrom the observation that different groups of people tend to use language iudifferent ways, using the one observation to explain the other; bui ln-anycase, the fact has to be accounted for, and cannot readily be accomñodatedin a conceptual framework which imposes a rigid boundary betwcen com_petence and performance and reduces the system to an idealized com-petence \ hich is invariable and insulated lroÁ lhe cnvironmcnt.

Labov has shown how, under conditions of social hierarchy, social prcs_su¡es act selectively on phonological and grammatical variables, leading k)variation and change. How far do such pressures also operate in the case ol.semantic change? Although Labov himself does not consider the scmanticlevel, his work on non-standard varieties of English has important impli-cations for this question.

In a recent paper (1970b), Labov gives a lively discussion of NcgroNon-Standard English for the purpose of demonstrating that it is jusi irsgrammatical and just as 'logical' as any of the ,standard, forms ol lhclanguage. This is not news to linguists, for whom it has always been a carrlirrirlaxiom of their subject; this is why, as Joan Baratz once poi;ted out, lingr¡isl shave rarely taken the trouble to deny the various myths and folk_bcliclsabout the illogicality of non-standard forms. There is no doubting thc logicof all linguistic systems. But although all linguistic systems ur" cqu,,lly'logical', they may differ in thei¡ scm¿rntic organization; and there havc I¡ccnscrious tliscussions about thc possibility of .dcep structure, diffcrenccs _

- amonp1 thc (lift¡rcnt

ll rriry lrc lct l)tirA ti) lltke il li)rg|,lrrrlcrl lltirl irll vi¡r.ir'lir.s ol lr lirngrrirgc


must be semantically identical, since as wc know thcrc arc many pcoplc whomisinterpret variety in evaluative tcrms: if two systcms differ. thcy hold,then one must be bcttcr than the other. It has bccn difficult cnough topersuade the Iayman to accept fbrms of English which ditTer phonologicallyfrom the received norm, and still morc so thosc which diffcr grammatically;there would probably be even greater rcsistance to the notion of scmanticdiffercnces. But one should not be browbeaten by these attitudes intorcjccting the possibility of subcultural variety in the semantic system. In thewords of Louis Dumont ( 1970, 289),

Thc oncness of the human species . . . docs not demaDd the arbitr¿ry reductionof divcrsity to unity; it only dcmands that it should be possib¡e to pass from oneparticularity to anothcr. and that no effort should be spa¡ed in order to elaboratea common language in which each particularity can be adequately dcsc¡ibed.

It is not too difficult to interpret this possibility of subcultural differences atthc scmantic level c¡n the basis of a combination r¡f Labov's theories withthr¡sc of Bernstein. Labov, presumably, is using the term 'logic' in his title inimitation of those who assefi that non-standard English'has no logic'; themeaning is'logicalness', the property ofbcing logical, rather than the kind oflogic that it displays. There is no reason to believe that one language orlanguage varicty has a different logic from another. But this does not mcantheir semantic systems must be identical. Labov's findings could, withenough contrivance, be ¡educed to diffcrenccs of grammar - thereby rob-bing thcm of any significance. What they in fact display are differences ofsemantic style, code-regulated habits of meaning, presumably transmittedthrough social and family structure, that distinguish one subculture fromanother. Bernstein's work provides a theoretical basis for the understandingof this kind of semantic variety, making it possible to envisage a socialsemiotic of a sufficicntly general kind. Some such theory of language andsocial structurc is a prerequisite for the interpretation of sociolinguisticphenomena, including Labov's own findings and the principles he de¡ivesfrom them. It is all the morc to be regretted, therefbre, that Labov includedin his valuable polemic some ill-founded and undocumented criticisms ofBernstein's work; e.g. 'The notion is first drawn from Bernstein's writingsthat . . .', followed by a quotation from somebody else which is diametricallyopposed to Bernstein's idcas. (Because of his misunderstanding of Bern-stein. Labov assumes - one must assume that he assumes it. since otherwisehis criticism would lose its point that the speech which q uotes from Larry is

an cxample of restricted code; in other words, Labov appcars to confuscBernstein's 'code' with social dialect, despite Bcrnstein's explicit distinctionbetwecn the two (1 97 1, 199, but clear already in I 97 1, 1 28, first publishctlin 1965; cf. again Hasan 1 973). It is my impression that in Larry's spccch rsLabov represents it thc controlling code is predominantly irn clal)()r.¿r lc(l ()nc.

although it is impossiblc to catcgorizc such sntall spr',.'ch si¡ntplcs rvilh ltnyrcal significartcc; truI in any casc. rrs I]crnslc irt hrs l)r'{ n irl lrrirts lo cslirlrlish,dilli'rcrrccsol corle luc rclrrlive llr( v irt('lr'r¡(lr'nur".. i¡r ,¡ulnlirlion\, \\,illrin

Sociological aspects of semantic change g7

which each individual displays considerable variation: a fact which helps toexplain some of Labov,s own findings.! Be¡nstein would, I have no dáubt,agree with the points that Labov purports ro make against him; but moreimportant than that, Bernstein,s work provides the iecessary theoreticalsupport for Labov's own ideas. Since this work has been misunderstoodin some quarrers it mry he helpful to attempt a Uri"i ,"."fiiri",l", .f i,he re.

J.J We can. I think-. idenr¡fy three stages in the development ofBernstein,stneorct¡cat ldeas. In the first stage, roughly prior to 1960, Bernsteinexamined the pattern of educationál failur! in ilritain, and aiiempted anexplanation of it in terms of certain nonlinguistic projections of the social\yslem,.particular¡y modes of perception. In the second stage. roughlyryou-{5. he came lo grips nor only u ith language but also witñlinguisiici.and came up with certain linguistic findings, oicásiaeraUte interest Uut stillor a ra[her unsystcmatic kind. In the third stage he combinecl his twr.r

lllll"rt in:ig¡tt ,nd soughr explanarions in terms of a ,ociui se-ioti", *tt¡tI¡e ¡lngursnc semrotlc. l.e- scmantics, as its focal point. ThiS has meant a:nl{or

st:p rowards a genuincly .sociolinguistic, tf,*.y _ on. inui i, ut on..both a theor) o[ language and a lheory of society.

_. Be¡nstein had begun with the observátion that eáucational failure was not

distributed randomly in the population, tending to corr"iat.-litn socirlclassl the lower the tamily in rhe social scale, tle lreater tne lnld,s chancesot tarlure. Clearly there was some incompátibility between lower_working-class social norms and the middle_clasi ethos ánd th"

"áu.utloralsystem based on it. The pattern emerged most starkly as a discrepancybetween measures ofve¡bal and nonverbal intelligence; th" dis"."pon"y *assignificanrly grearer in lhe ¡ower uorking class _"rnd ir r.nd.JrJ in.r.ur.with a€e. Therc was obviously. therefore,-a linguistic elem.nt i, th" p.o""..,and tsernstein deve¡opcd his [jrsf verrion o[ lhe .codc. theor\ to lrv roaccount for it: 'elaborated code. represented rhe more u".Uuúy

"*fii.it,context-independent type of language, one which maintained social dis_tance, demanded individuated responses, and made no assumptions aboutthe hearer's intent: while the .restriited

code,was the mor" ,"rO'uiiy i_pfi"i,,contexldependent, socially intimate form in w hich the hearcr.s intent couldbe taken fo¡ granted and hence rcsponses could be based on communalizednorms. Education as at present organized demanded elaborated code;the¡cforc, if any social group hacl, by virtue of its putt"rn. oi .o"iutirutlon,

! It is astonishing lhllr t_ bov finds in llcrnsrcin a ,bias againsr alt forms of working ctass

lll:::iil, .: l] .,n).rr,,r,r. lf,,,¡\r(.i,,.. rl nr¡rarhies *,,,,ld ,".,"-i; ;;li.;".ir,". *,r. a. u".yl,r)r¡tri\ t)r¡r\ rt. \\ IilLr. rtr t:rr rt\ r\.¡,IL( r!.(t. B.,sit Birn\lcin bctra). a pr;tercn(r r(,r.,11,:'l::ll,,ll

,1r,,r,,r ,.,,r*,r,.,,r,,r i¡rr*rr:rr :r¡¡c:rrr iHr.i";,;;;,;,;1..,n.,,,r¡,.,r:r\\ t,rf(, I,,\\ r!, \r/1.. (r r r, rr!,. ! ,r,r,t i \Ir(.( l!:,rr,l iun.j;rnrr¡ ,rt u c( urnly irr(rrv.nt.,r . It,. .t;,tx,,i,r((r (,¡(t(,5r¡,, r,,,¡,,rr,,,,,,".,,i,",,i¡.:,,,.i,i.,,',,,ni,.i,ii,"", ,r,"((rtrirl\r\t.,¡ r¡i¡r f(,( r:rr(.\ it ¡,. tiri(t t,ir,..t,.,r(,,.rti,\t(,(rr,,/r,.i,li,,ll;,irii::0,r,,5.N()v(r'rt,( rl¡,/.,) trlli,\ ll.r\,.\t,r(.\s.,t r,.,,r,.rtor , r, $,r! ¡ s trx.tr lI\,,* I r ri rcs tr¡vc lcLt1,,,' I\, , rl,r' t.rtr,, ,,t |t,.1r.,t, Ir.\ $,,t1.

88 A sociosemiotic interPretation of language

only partial or conditional control over this code' that group would be at a

disadvantage.";;;;Ji; the linsuists, Bcrnstein attempted to define lh" t:1::,]1

It"iltJiár,;.giining *irt inventories of features and_ progresstng

i:§;J' "';;il0; o'i :ivniuttit pi"oittion' according to which elaborated

illiá,.";;;;",:iized úv a widei ranse of svntactic choices' restricted code

;; ; ;;;;'ñt;;;'.r-,,g.'ft'o" iirt ñvt'ri"¡" catesoricallv reiccred this

'i;;;;;;,i;; ;"te p'artlv confounded bv some interesting earlv studics

;;lil';;:,;;;;;;' i; ;ú" p"r-'un'" or ce'tain tasks'.th€ amount or

"r"rn.rii."i ""ri"ri,.rn thar was found in respccr of (i) modificati,rn in the

il;i;;;;;rp;rJ ( ii) the use ..rf m'rdalities' bv children o[various ases' was

iri;;ifik"á to social class [t was clear' ho*"'"'' that any significant

linsuistic generalizations that could be made would be at the semanric level'

.t"H'i;';;;;;;;;;h ."u'ing' that the codes were manilested in language'

;;;ililil; *3n, on to idcntify a small number of 'critical s.cializing"-;;;a;' ;;;áir"¿ rituuti.,n it'""s from which the child' in the milicu of

,ñ" orirrñ1.-arzing ugtnci"' Jdfom ilv' peer sroup ang,"n::.119"'"t h't

essential information about tne social tytt"t fn" hypothesis was that' in a

;;;'.;;;r,. say thal of parcntal conirol of the child's behaviour' various

Eiit.;;;;':;;t;i.rn, *iit in thc semantic svstcm might tvpicallv be

n"t]""..1, -¡""é

,ne c'¡des'couldberhoughtrrfasdiffcrentialoricntationttruiJrt ut r.rning in given social situations'

It seemed that if in 'oln"

t"nt" access to the codes is controlled by social

.f ^r,-,t

i.-con,-f *as achieueá throush the existcnce of different family

irr"r.'i.t".á i" tcrms of rtrle rclatio"nships within.the. family: the 'posi-

liJ;;i "il';;;"nat' ramitv tvfes (cr' l'3 above) with important quali-

il;ii;r;';"á-il.ot.go'i'átiáli' it app'orcd that stronelv positional

families would tend to*a'ds rettticted-cááe forms of interaction.- at least in

ilñ;;;;;;niut tonttoiin the re8'ulative context F¿rmilv tvpes do

,i,..t*tá" *fitt;Iasses; but it is likely thit' in the British context' the more

;;;;t, ;;;;.r"i ramilv is rounJ mosí frequentlv among the lower working

H:"'l ffi';;;; t..ii;" "r the population whé-rc thc proportion of edu-

l^1i"*ii",,rr" ',,

it f tigt".t. r'h.'rnodel rhen ltroks something like this:

( different) social classcs

\(ditferent) famil1, role \Ystems

\(differenQ semiotic codes

(different) 'J'l"t' uf meaning and relevance'

The later development of Bernstein's thought is set out in the final papers

of(jirri,'lri", ,,á conuot ' 'á''i' *hich arc-too rich to bc su¡nnrarizccl in a

short snirce. Rcrnstcin's tt""* " il lh(r)ry ()f s'rciill lc¡rlllilll'' ¡rrlrl cttllur¡tl

i;ilil1.',";,. ,;''.i r*"" .,r ""ii.l ¡'..r'.i'teirce rttttl s"r'irtl ' lr'rrr¡1 As Mrtt'v

f)otrglits l)rrls it ( l()7:, 1ll)'


Whatever [Bernstein] does, . . . he looks at four clemcnts in the social process.First the sytem ofcont¡ol, second the bour|da¡ies it sets up. third the justificationor ideology rvhich sanctifies the boundaries. and fourth he looks at the powerwhich is hidden by the rest... .

I think Professor Bernstein's work is the first to argue that the distribution ofspecch forms is equally a realization of the distribution of power'.

It is a theory of society in which languagc plays a central part, both asdeterminer and as determined: language is controlled by the social structure,and the social structure is maintained and transmitted through language.Hence it offe rs the foundation for interpreting processes of semanlic changc.

3.4 In te¡ms of the framework we set up in the first section, there are twopossible mechanisms of sociosemantic change: feedback and transmission -that is, feedback from the text to the system, and transmission of the systemto the child. As far as feedback is concerned, there is the possibility ofchanges in the meanings that are typically associated with particular contextsor situation types, taking place in the course of time. These changes comcabout, for example, through changes in the family role systems, undcrconditions which Bernstein has suggested; or through other social factr)rs -changes in educational ideologies, for example. Such changes could relatc torather specific situation types, such as those in the two illustrations givenabove.

We are familiar with instances of small subsystems realizing specifie urcasof symbolic behaviour. A good example is the 'pronouns of powcr anclsolidarity' (Brown and Gilman 1960). The semantic system of moclcrnEnglish is quite different at this point from that ol Elizabethan English, somuch so that we can no longer even follow, for example, the detailcrlsubtleties and the shifts which take place in the personal relationship of Cclirrand Rosalind inás You Like It,which is revealed by their sensitive switchingbetween thou and¡oa (Mclntosh I963). This is simply not in our scnralliesystem. But such instances are limited, not only in that they rcprcsclllsomewhat specific semantic options but also in that they reflect only lllrstsocial relationships that are created by language (and that do n\)r e\i5tindependently of language: the formyor has meaning only as the cncotlirrgol a purely linguistic relationship) - or else, as in the case of changcs in theuse of kin terms, they aflect only the direct expression of the social rcl¡-tionships themselves. Bcrnstein's work allows us to cxtcnd beyold lhcselim ited instances in two significant ways. First, it providcs an insight inkr hou,thc relations within the social systcm may comc to shapc anti ntotlity othcr'rncanings that lanSuage expresses, which nray bc mctnings ol irny kinrl¡socioscnrartic v¿rriation antl changc is not conlincd t() thc sc,r¡ilntics ()l'

irrlcr¡rcrsonal cornnrrrniclrlio¡). Sec()nd. in the light ()l a luncli()nitl ilceolItt ()lthe scnrilnlic svsl(rr. llL l.lr\tr'in's \\()[k sul]l.lcsls horr llrr.'clr;rttges ill sPtr'r.lrl)itllü¡tl\ lltlll itt( l)lrtltl,ltl ¡tlrltttl i¡t lltis §it\ hccorttr' in(()fl¡r¡rl( (l i¡tlo tlt(\\'\l( rrr, ir\ ir ¡r'sr¡ll l)l ¡ltr' t ¡ t t ¡ t r t t r r ' t I r I r I r' rIIirtrrIiIrr'()I sr)r'iitl inl( l lt('lirt|t. i||t(Isr¡


havc an effect on other options, not disturbing the whole system (whatever

i't ri*.rfJ Á.".1, but reacting specifically on those options that are func-

tionally related to them.---i¡"í tn"r" is transmission. and here we have considered the chitd's

leaining of the mother tongue from a sociolinguistic point ol view: suggest-

inn t¡uñ¡" ¿.r"fopmcntal origins of the semantic system are to be sought in

ii! .rti"., ot ,."ning potentlal deriving from certain primary functions of

i;;gí;;; - instrumen-táI, regulatory and-so.on' Lel us postulate that a

oarticular socializtng agency, such ai the family, tends to favour one set of

il;.it;;; or", unni'h.i thát is, to respond more positively to the child's

-"uningt in that area' at least.in certain significant socializing contexts'

Then th"e semantic system ass<lciated with such contexts will show a ¡clative

Árientation towards those areas of meaning potential' An indication of how

ihi;';;t."rn. about at an early age is given in.an inte.resting study by

iirit"rií" Nelson (1973). whicñ suggests that the comhination of edu-

."il.r"i r"*l of parent with position of child in family may lead to dif-

i"i.niiur t"-unti" orientationi and thus influence the child's functional

strategy for languagc learning."'iir.% it

"o,t ing lurprising-in this; it would be surprising if it was other-

*i;.-ih; qu"tti.i, ttat is áf interest is to what extent such functional

.rii.rtutinn, b".o-e incorporated into the system We noted earlier that the

.t iiá, t ""i.g

U.g"n by invenring his own language, in which the expression is

,n."íut.A t,ioOitt sp;ech, at a ccrtain point abandons the phylogenetic trail

un¿ ,rt", over the;dult system; theri is a discontinuity in the realization'

;;, ;h;;. is (we suggestedl no functional discontinuity; the child continues

. Lrii¿ ." it" t riitionui origins of the system, generalizing out of his

oriei;at turrctional set of basic áistinction of pragmatic versus mathctic - a

;;.1';;i.. trr 'doina' function, which demands a response from the hearer'

ánO? rn"tt "ti.

ot 'liarning' function, which is realized through observation'

recall and prediction andwhich is self-sufficient: it demands no response

from anyone. This, in turn' is a transitional pattern, which serves to trans-

fu.- thJ fun.tionul matrix so that it becomes the core of the adult language'

,"i.i^g ,t. form of the ideational/interpersonal components in the semantic

."t*8ti; ¡.*.,r,ere is functional continuity in the system'.At the same time

the Drimarv functions evolvc into social contexts, the situation types encoun-

;";"'J i;li";;;.sc of dailv life' For example' the originat interactional

function of calls and responses to those on whom the child was emotionally

á"iLná.nt O"r.fops into the general interpersonalcontext w-ithin the family

""á 1"", gt"tp' ,ti. imaginative function óf sound-play developsinb that of

rnrg! ".¿"¡viri." and sáries; and so on Thus there is functional continuity

;;".;, ,h" í, in thc contexts in which selections are made from within thc

ay.,"-. fn" meanings engendcred by the social system' in othcr words' arc

ií.f,,¡ut thc child i; predisposcd by his own languitgc cx¡rctien(e to ¡d¿rPl

the linguistic nrodc of mclrtritrg lo thcnr' . .' Ñ,itri,"tty. hc'trrakcs sctlrirrliic tlrisl¡rkcs'itt lltt ¡rtr"trr' rtrt't rLtsrvhiclt

¿rre ofte t¡ t'cveirlittg. lot'exittttple. l()witr(ls lllc t'ttrlol II¡''"'r''rrrI l' rr¡ Nil"tl

Sociological aspects of scmantic change 9l

learnt the grammatical distinction between declarative and interrogativc.He locatcd it, correctly, in th{] interpcrsonal component in the system, andrelated it to contexts of thc cxchangc of information. But having at the timcno concept of asking yeS/no questions (i.e. isolating the polarity element inthc demand for information), he used the system to rcalize a semanticdistinction which hc did makc but which the adult languagc does not, namclythat betwecn imparting information to someonc who knows it alrcady, whohas shared the relevant experience rvith him (declarative), and impartinginformation to «rmconc who has not shared thc expericnce and so does notknow it (interrogative). T hus, for example, on one occ¿rsion while playingwith his father hc fcll down; he got up and said to his fathcryou lbll tlowrt(vor rcfcrred to himself at this stagc). Then his mother, who had not becnpresent, came into thc room; hc ran up to her and said did you fall down'!'I'he usc ofyoa for'mc'and thc use of the interrogative for giving intirr-mation are of coursc connccted; thcy are both, in terms ef cognitivcdcvelopmcnt, features of thc phase bcfore role-playing in specch. But thcmodal pattern revcals a small semantic subsystem, not prcsent in the adultIanguagc, which is both stable in tcrms of the child's meaning potential at thctime, and transitional in the wider devclopmcntal contcxt.

The functional contiruity that we have postulated, according k) whichboth thc linguistic system itsclf and its cnvironment evolve out of thc initialset of functions which define the child's earliest acts of meaning, accounts tirrthe fact that the child's nrcaning potcntial may develop different oriun-tations under differc nt environmcntal conditions - also, thereforc, undcr t hccontrol of differcnt symbolic codes. 'The social structurc becomcs the dc-vcbping child's psychological rcality by the shaping of his act of spccch'(Bernstcin 1971, 124). If thcrc are changes in thc social structure, cspcciallychangcs aflecting the family role systems, these may lead to changss in thcchild's orientation towards or away from certain ways of mcaning in ccrtlirrtypes of situation; and this, particularly in the environment of what Bc!.n-stein calls the'critical socializing contexts', may lead to changes in lcarnirrgstrategies, and hence to changes in thc meaning potential that is typicallyassociatcd with various environments - i.e. in thc semantic system.'l'hcs(,changes in meaning potentialwould take place gradually and without cssc rr-tial discontinuity. A sociosemantic change of this kind docs not ncccssarilyimply, and probably usually does not imply, the complete disappcarancc ol a

scmantic choice, or the appearance of a totally new one. It is likcly to meanrather that ccrtain choices bocome more, or lcss, dilfcrcntiatcd; ()r lllirlccrtain choices a¡e more, or less, f¡equently takcn up. Thcsc thinlls l(x) ilrcfcatures of the systcm. It secms possihle, thcrcforc, thal scrrat¡tic chitngcsnray be brought about by changes in thc social stlt¡cturc, lhr()rrgh tlt(.opcration of the sort of proccsses dcscribcd by l,abov, in thc corrrse ol tlretlirns¡rission of lir¡¿r¡¡rgc to thc child. Whcthcr ()r n()t il is lllre lh¡tl. l|sWcinreich. l.¡rl¡rr'¡¡ntl lltlzog clirirrr (196I.i, I.l5). 'tlre chilrl rtol¡t¡rlly ¡¡.,r¡ttilt s ltis ¡ritt licttlrr (liirl( ( ! l)rlt( n¡. irtclurlirrg lecr.nl r. llrngr.s. lrrrrrr clriltllr'rr,rrrly rli¡llrllr',¡lrI r llr,rn lrr¡rr,,r'll . il sr.t ¡lts ck l¡r tlr¡rl o¡llv rr,lrr.r¡ st inlt ¡ ¡r¡r'l

i

I


tanguage development in the contextofthe construction and transmissionof

soci"al ieality can we hope to find in it the sources and mechanisms of

linguistic change.We can call the field of study sociolinguistics; but if our goal is the pursuit

of system-inJanguage (Fishman 1971, 8), this is surely linguistics, andIinguistics always has, throughout all its shifts ol emphasis, accepted whatHymes ( 1967) calls the 'sociocultural dimensions of its subject-matter', thelink between language and the social factors that must be adduced to explainobserved linguistic phenomena. By the same token, however, we do notneed 'communicative competence', which has to be adduced only if thesystem has first been isolated from its social context. If we are concernedwith 'what the speaker-hearer knows', as distinct from what he can do, andwe call this his 'competence', then competence is communicative com-petence; there is no other kind. But this seems to be a needless complication.The system can be represented directly in'inter-organism'terms, as'whatthe speaker-hearer can do', and more specifically what he can mean. To shiftto an 'intra-organism' perspective adds nothing by way of explanation.

The sociology of language is a different question, as Fishman says; herethe aims are wider than the characterization of the linguistic system. Socio-logy of language implies the theoretical relation of the linguistic system toprior, independently established sociological concepts, as in Bernstein'swork, where each theory is contingent on the other: the linguistic system is as

essential to the explanation of social phenomena as is the social system to theexplanation of linguistic phenomena.

In considering the social conditions of linguistic change. we are asking notonly the 'sociolinguistic' question, to what extent are changes in the lin-guistic system relatable to social factors, but also, and perhaps more, the'sociology of language' question, to what extent are changes in the linguisticsystem essential concomitants of features of (including changes in) the socialsystem. Labov's work on phonetic change has not yet, so far as I know, beentaken up by sociologists; but it reveals patterns and principles of intra- andinter-group communication which seem to me to have considerable sig-nificance for theories of social interaction and social hierarchy. And fromanother angle, Bernstein's ¡esearch into language in the transmission ofculture is equally central both to an understanding of language, includinglanguage development in children and linguistic change, and to an under-standing of society, of persistence and change in the social structure. Herewe are in a genuine interdiscipline of sociology and linguistics, an area ofconvergence of two diflerent sets of theories, and ways of thinking aboutpeople.

Bernstein once reproached sociologists for not taking into account thc factthat humans speak. lf linguists seek to understand the phenomcna of pcr-sistence and changc in thc linguistic systcm - how thc inncrnr)sl p¿rltcrns

both of languagc ¿rncl of cttltt¡tc arc lnttrs¡'¡¡illcrl lhr()t¡gl¡ lh( (()unll(ssr'u icfosc m i()1ic ptrlccsscs ol soci¡l irlll..rircli()rr rve lir¡'ot¡¡ l)rrrl rrr¡r\l l( irnl l1)

Iitkc ir(cr)u¡¡I()l ll)L lilcl Il¡irl ht¡nrrn\\Pl rt k. nrtl i¡ srrlilttrL .l)rrl l() r';r( lr i)ll!( t

Social dialects and soc¡alization*

This book* is the record of a confercnce on social dialects organized by thcCenter for Applied Linguistics late in 1969. It is'crossdisciplinary, in thcsense that, of the ten participants, two were invited as specialists in speechand cr¡mmunication, two in psychology. two in sociolinguistics, two in cdu-cation and two in linguistics/anthropology. Undcr each of these disciplinaryheadings, one of thc two contributes a paper and the othcr a response.

Thc five papers are. in corrcsponding sequence, ,social dialects and thcficld of speech'. by Frederick Williams; 'Developmental studies of com-municative competcnce', by Harry Osser; 'Social dialects in deveiopmcrtalsociolinguistics'. by Susan M. Ervin-Tripp; 'Approaches to social dialccts inearly childhood education', by Courtney Cazden; and 'sociolinguistics fronra linguistic perspective', by Walt Wolfram. Finally, there is a contributionentitled 'The inadequacies ofthe linguistic approach in teaching situations',by Sicgfried Engclmann, who was specially invited by the editor ro commcnton criticisms madc of the 'Bereitcr-Engelmann approach' in certain ol thepapers contained in the book.

Not surprisingly, thc cmphasis throughout is strongly pragmatic, rvith anorientation towards programme devclopment. The context fo¡ such ¿r con-ferencc is incvitablv the critical situation in American education;the crisis isnot limited to the Unitcd States, of course, but it is the Amcrican sccncwhich is unde¡ focus he¡e. Thc Cente¡ for Applied Linguistics, UrbanLanguage Series rcflects the same growing preoccupation. In the ccntrc ol'attentiotl is'black English', and there is frer¡ucnt relérence, especially in thcresponses to the papers, to the negative aspects of study and intcrycntionprogrammes: the lack of understanding of black culture, languagc usc arrdlanguage aspirations, the assumption that it is speech habits thát must bechanged instead of the attitudes towards them, the reluctancc to Io()kobjcctively into thc school as a social institution. and so on. In ClaudiirM itchell Kernan's words, 'Reaction in the black community to black Englishas it is portrayed in somc grammars and readers has otien bccn ncgativc. . . .

M¡ny rcprcsentatiitns of black English diffcr to such a dcgrcc ll.oDl tllelarrguagc us it is prcscntly uscd that they ought to prcsagc thc rc¿rclil)r). l'hcsclrlclr lirr ir ncrv iclcntitv underway in black communitics cvcrywltcrc iul(lll¡c sl)irit ol lcbcllion agaiÍtst an icicntitv Llclincrl by outsidcls shor¡ltl lx.

N l(r't(s ol \,\¡t,li fJt¡\tit\: i t t¡,\\tlir it'lit¡tt¡\ /,.¡Vr1lir, (Wl\tringl(¡ . t)( i(i.nt.¡ l,¡r,\l't'lr,,l I rrrrrrntr,.)

4

Halliday-Sociological Aspects of Semantic Change

Documents

Transcript of Halliday-Sociological Aspects of Semantic Change