1
Introduction

In this chapter:

• Types of sociolinguistics
• The background of the discipline
• Personalizing sociolinguistics
• Getting the most out of this book

I'm sitting here in Newfoundland, in Canada, writing a book about sociolinguistics, and you're out there somewhere, starting to read it. If you were here and could hear me talk - especially if you were Canadian, especially if you had some training - you could tell a lot about me. For example, you'd know which speech community I originally came from. When I speak English, most people can tell I'm North American (I pronounce schedule with a [sk] sound), Canadian (I rhyme shone with gone, not bone), and probably from Québec (I drink soft drinks and keep my socks in a bureau). When I speak French, it's clear that I'm from Québec (I pronounce tu like tsu), from the southwest (I pronounce garage like garawge), and definitely English (I say so a lot, and I have a particular pronunciation of the letter r that English Québeckers use to avoid sounding "too English").

You could also tell where I fit into my speech community. I'm the child of immigrants - if you were really good, you'd know that one of them was from the north of England (I have an unusual r when I speak English, almost like a w). I'm probably under 80 (I pronounce whale and wail the same), but I'm definitely not young (I almost never end sentences with a question-like rising intonation). Once you knew I was middle-aged, you could tell I was male, and either straight or straight-sounding (I don't use a lot of so to mean very, I pitch my voice fairly deep and don't often have "swoopy" pitch patterns). Those are just some of the obvious things - there are more specific but hard-to-hear distinctions, like the exact way I pronounce my vowels, that could tell you even more. And if I was wherever you are, I could probably tell a lot about your speech community and where you fit into it. The fact that we can do this is one of the things that interest sociolinguists.

But there's more. I'm writing a textbook, and you're probably reading it because you have to (for a university course, most likely). So you have certain expectations, given your past experiences with higher education and previous textbooks that you've read, and I have certain obligations to you (and to my publisher). If I want to appear competent, I should use academic language, but if I don't want to discourage you, I shouldn't go overboard with linguistic terminology. Maybe I should work hard to make this book more accessible than other textbooks. At the same time, I have to get all this past your prof, who knows your school and its students far better than I do, and who at some point had to read this book and decide if it was suitable for your course, and who might not have much patience for my attempts at accessibility. The fact that we're aware of what's expected (linguistically) from this particular interaction is also the kind of thing that interests sociolinguists.

And all of this - the way we talk or sign, the writing and reading of textbooks - happens in a broader social context, the result of decisions made by societies and those who govern them. I grew up going to an English-language school because earlier Canadian governments decided to protect English language rights in Québec (sometimes to a greater degree than French language rights elsewhere in Canada). Maybe I use my "not too English" r when I speak French because my generation doesn't want to be associated with the English speakers before us, the ones who didn't try too hard to speak French-sounding French. As for the textbook, somebody more powerful than either of us decided that you needed a particular kind of education for whatever it is you're doing, and that it involved a course in sociolinguistics, and maybe that it would happen in English, whether that's convenient for you or not. So here we are. And all that, too, is the kind of thing that interests sociolinguists.

types of sociolinguistics

So, what is sociolinguistics? The usual answer is something like "The scientific study of the relationship(s) between language and society." Which is true enough. A more useful answer for someone new to the field, though, might be "It depends who you ask." As in any hyphenated or blended field, the umbrella term sociolinguistics covers researchers working all across the spectrum, from very linguistic to very socio. Sociolinguists can study how the language practices of one community differ from those of the next, as described in Chapters 2 (communities), 3 (place), and 6 (ethnicity). We can study the relationship in a particular community between language use and social categories like class and status (Chapter 4), ethnicity (Chapter 6), and gender and sexuality (Chapter 7), whether we perceive those categories as relatively fixed or open to active performance and construction (Chapter 8, style). We can study the relationship between social and linguistic forces and language change (Chapter 5, time). We can also choose to study how language can reveal social relationships, such as how each of us, as social beings, adapts our language to suit the situation and the audience (Chapters 8, style, and 9, interaction). We can study the relationships between different languages within and across communities (Chapters 10, multilingualism, and 11, language contact). We can study how people feel about language and language diversity (Chapter 12, attitudes), and how their societies manifest those attitudes through language planning and policy (Chapter 13), especially in the domain of education (Chapter 14).

And, of course, we understand that all these forces interact, and that the distinct research traditions that we've developed to deal with them can all be brought to bear on a single sociolinguistic situation (see the interlude after Chapter 7 and the epilogue at the end of the book). You'll see as we work our way through the book that those research traditions can be quite distinct. Sociolinguists looking at the status of different languages in a country might never mention the actual linguistic details of the languages in question. Sociolinguists working on change in the vowel system of a language might never mention the changing status of the language. Different sub-disciplines have different ideas, not only about what's worth studying, but also about what would count as valid evidence in that study. This, in turn, drives their choice of research methods. So in the chapters that follow, we'll look at some of those research traditions and methods - where possible, under the chapter headings where they're most relevant.

background: the history of sociolinguistics

Deciding exactly when sociolinguistics began is like arguing about when the first rock 'n' roll record was made. It's entertaining for the participants, but it gives you only a slight understanding of how things got to where they are today. For many people, the first systematic study of the relationship between language variation and social organization is described in a 1958 article by the sociologist John L. Fischer. Fischer was studying how New England schoolchildren used "g-dropping," alternating between running and runnin'. He found statistically significant correlations between each linguistic form and a student's sex and social class. In other words, rather than free variation, in which the choice between forms is completely arbitrary and unpredictable, he found structured variation, in which the choice between forms is linked to other factors. In fact, it's possible to push the birth of sociolinguistics back ever further - Louis Gauchat's work on the French dialects of Charney, Switzerland (1905!) correlates language variation with the age and sex of the people he spoke to.

If you're not committed to the idea that you need lots of numbers to do sociolinguistics, you can see that people have spent centuries observing the relationship between some linguistic forms and the kind of people who use them. For example, over 200 years ago, the grammarian James Beattie observed that extending where you could use an -s on the end of verbs (as in the birds pecks) was found "in the vernacular writings of Scotch men prior to the last century, and in the vulgar dialect of North Britain to this day: and, even in England, the common people frequently speak in this manner, without being misunderstood" (Beattie 1788/1968: 192-193). So here we see awareness of language variation ("people frequently speak in this manner"), as well as the regional and social correlates (the North, "common people"). Generally, though, earlier linguistic work assumes categoricity (that linguistic rules always apply), and assumes that all variation is free variation. Writing aimed at a broader public, like grammars and usage manuals, often just assumes that all variation is, well, wrong. Jackson (1830), for example, categorizes a variety of...