Advertisement

The Scope of Sociolinguistics

  • Dell Hymes
Chapter
Part of the Modern Linguistics Series book series

Abstract

Chomsky’s (1965) work is a decisive step, not only in extending the scope of linguistic theory, but also in redefining the nature of its object. For ‘language’ Chomsky substitutes ‘competence,’ defined as a fluent native speaker’s knowledge (largely tacit) of grammaticality — of whether or not putative sentences are part of his language, and according to what structural relationships. The goal of linguistic description is thus changed, from an object independent of men, to a human capacity. Both changes (deep structure, human capacity) are felt to be so great as to lead transformational grammarians to reject ‘structural linguistics’ as a name for their work, and to use it solely to describe other schools as predecessors. From a social standpoint, transformational grammar might equally well be seen as the culmination of the leading theme of structural linguistics. To center analysis in a deep structure, one grounded in human nature, is to fulfill an impulse of structural linguistics to treat language as a sphere of wholly autonomous form. Such a theory perfects and gives the ultimate justification to a study of language at once of human significance and abstracted from actual human beings.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernstein, B. (1972) Class, Codes and Social Control, I: Theoretical Papers ( London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  3. Denison, N. (1970) ‘Sociolinguistic Aspects of Plurilingualism’, Proceedings of the International Days of Sociolinguistics ( Rome: Istituto Luigi Sturzo ) pp. 255–78.Google Scholar
  4. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972) ‘On Sociolinguistic Rules: Alternation and Co-occurrence’, in Directions in Sociolinguistics, Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds) ( New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston ) pp. 213–50.Google Scholar
  5. Firth, J. R. (1935) ‘The Technique of Semantics’, Transactions of the Philological Society, London, pp. 36–72.Google Scholar
  6. Fishman, J. (1966) Language Loyalty in the United States ( The Hague: Mouton).Google Scholar
  7. Gumperz, John J. (1964) ‘Linguistic and Social Interaction in Two Communities’, in The Ethnography of Communication, Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds) Special Issue of American Anthropologist, 66 (6), pp. 137–53.Google Scholar
  8. Halliday, M. A. K. (1970) ‘Functional Diversity in Language as seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English’, Foundations of Language, 6, pp. 322–61.Google Scholar
  9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1971) ‘Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Language of William Golding’s The Inheritors’, in Literary Style: A Symposium, Chatman, S. (ed.) ( London: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  10. Hymes, D. (1964a) Directions in (Ethno) Linguistic Theory’, in Transcultural Studies of Cognition, Romney, A. K. and D’Andrade, R. G. (eds) (Special publication, American Anthropologist, 66(3), part 2 ) ( Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association ) pp. 6–56.Google Scholar
  11. Hymes, D. (1964b) ‘Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication’, in The Ethnography of Communication, Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds) (Special publication, American Anthropologist, 66(6), part 2 ) ( Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association ) pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
  12. Jakobson, R. (1963) ‘Efforts Towards a Means-ends Model of Language in Interwar Continental Linguistics’, in Trends in Modern Linguistics, Mohrmann, C., Norman, F. and Sommerfelt, A. (eds) (Utrecht: Spectrum Publishers) pp. 104–8. (Reprinted in his Selected Writings, 2, pp. 522–6 (The Hague: Mouton, 1971).)Google Scholar
  13. Labov, W. (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City ( Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics).Google Scholar
  14. Labov, W. (1970) ‘The Study of Language in its Social Context’, Studium Generale 20, pp. 30–87.Google Scholar
  15. Labov, W. (1971) ‘Methodology’, in A Survey of Linguistic Science, Dingwall, W. O. (ed.) ( College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Linguistics Program ) pp. 412–91.Google Scholar
  16. Labov, W. (1973a) Language in the Inner City ( Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania).Google Scholar
  17. Labov, W. (1973b) Sociolinguistic Patterns ( Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania).Google Scholar
  18. Lakoff, R. (1972) ‘Language in Context’, Language, 48, pp. 907–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakoff, R. (1973) ‘Language and Woman’s Place’, Language in Society, 2 (1), pp. 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le Page, R. (1969) ‘Problems of Description in Multilingual Communities’, Transactions of the Philological Society (1968), London, pp. 189–212.Google Scholar
  21. Mao Tse-Tung (1964) On Practice ( Peking: Foreign Language Press).Google Scholar
  22. Sapir, E. [Papers by Sapir reprinted in Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1949) are indicated by ‘SWES,’ together with their pages in that collection.]Google Scholar
  23. Sapir, E. (1932) ‘Cultural Anthropology and Psychiatry’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27 (SWES 509–21) pp. 229–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sapir, E. (1934) ‘The Emergence of the Concept of Personality in a Study of Cultures’, Journal of Social Psychology, 5 (SWES 590–7) pp. 408–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sapir, E. (1938) ‘Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist’, Psychiatry, 1 (SWES 569–77) pp. 7–12.Google Scholar
  26. Sapir, E. (1939) ‘Psychiatric and Cultural Pitfalls in the Business of Getting a Living’, Mental Health, Publication No. 9 (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (SWES 578–89) pp. 237–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dell Hymes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations