Sociolinguistics

• The face-protection explanation suggests that a woman uses standard forms in order to protect her ‘face’ and avoid offence to others.
• The choice of one linguistic form rather than another is a useful clue to non-linguistic information.
• Linguistic variation can provide social information.
• Language choice in multilingual communities is influenced by factors such as solidarity, status, and the setting or type of interaction.
• More formal varieties of language require more conscious learning, but most varieties in a person’s linguistic repertoire are acquired with little conscious effort.
• The aim or purpose of the interaction, the topic, and the function are important components in sociolinguistic explanations of language choice.
• The first two steps which need to be taken in explaining sociolinguistic variation are to identify clearly the linguistic variation involved and to identify clearly the different social or non-linguistic factors which lead speakers to use one form rather than another.
• Domains of language use, as identified by Joshua Fishman, involve typical interactions between typical participants in typical settings.
• The status scale points to the relevance of relative status in some linguistic choices.
• The solidarity–social distance scale is useful in emphasising that how well we know someone is a relevant factor in linguistic choice.
• Different participants may interpret the ‘same’ interaction quite differently, the ethnography of speaking framework, focuses rather on speech events as a whole, and embraces the total social and cultural setting as components in the analysis.
• Sociolinguistics and politeness research has explored how different speech acts are expressed appropriately and politely in different social and cultural contexts.
• A variety is a set of linguistic forms used under specific social circumstances, with a distinctive social distribution.
• Variety is a broad term which includes different accents, different linguistic styles, different dialects and even different languages which contrast with each other for social reasons.
• The function or goal of the interaction is also an important factor in selecting an appropriate variety or code.
• The components of a domain do not always fit with each other within any domain, individual interactions may not be ‘typical’ in the sense in which ‘typical’ is used in the domain concept.
• A model describes which code or codes are usually selected for use in different situations.
• Attitudes to the L variety in a diglossia situation are varied and often ambivalent.
• The social distance dimension is relevant in accounting for the choice of variety or code.
• The status relationship between people may be relevant in selecting the appropriate code.
• In many parts of Switzerland, people are quite comfortable with their L variety and use it all the time.
• In every community there is a range of varieties from which people select according to the context in which they are communicating.
• Attitudes to the H variety in a diglossia situation are usually very respectful.
• The model provides a clear basis for comparing patterns of code choice in different speech communities.
• In countries where the H variety is a language used in another country as a normal means of communication, and the L variety is used only locally, people may rate the L variety very low indeed.
• Haiti, although both French and the Creole were declared national languages in the 1983 constitution, many people still regard French, the H variety, as the only real language of the country.
• Diglossia with and without bilingualism are terms that refer to different languages, two languages are required to cover the full range of domains and most individuals are bilingual.
• In multilingual situations, the codes selected are generally distinct languages, while in predominantly monolingual speech communities, such as those of many English-speaking people in Britain or New Zealand, the contrasting codes are different styles of one language.
• Diglossia has been described as a stable situation where two varieties can continue to exist side by side for centuries, alternatively, one variety may gradually displace the other.
• Politically united groups where two languages are used for different functions, but by largely different speech communities are common in colonised countries with clear-cut social class divisions.
• The L variety is highly valued by some speakers.
• Situations where individuals are bilingual, but there is no community-wide functional differentiation in the use of their languages are common in English-speaking countries like Australia, the USA, England and New Zealand.
• In all speech communities, people use different varieties or codes in formal contexts, such as religious and legal ceremonies, as opposed to relaxed casual situations.
• People sometimes switch code within a domain or social situation, such switches are often very short and they are made primarily for social reasons – to signal and actively construct the speaker’s ethnic identity and solidarity with the addressee.
• Both Mandarin and formal Singapore English can be considered H varieties alongside different L varieties.
• In monolingual communities these take the form of different styles and dialects.
• Social class is used as a convenient label for groups of people who share similarities in economic and social status.
• The higher a person’s social class, the closer their pronunciation was to RP.
• Social dialect research in many different countries has revealed a consistent relationship between social class and language patterns.
• Differences in pronunciation are often not absolute, but rather matters of frequencies.