The term ‘sociolinguistics’ is a fairly new one. Like
its elder sisters, ‘ethno linguistics’ and ‘psycholinguistics’, it is not easy
to define with precision; indeed, these three terms tend to overlap somewhat in
their subject matter, and to a certain extent reflect differences in the
interests and approaches of investigators rather than differences in material.
It is certainly correct to say that sociolinguistics studies, like those
carried out under the name of ‘sociology of language’, deal with the
relationships between language and society. But such a statement is excessively
vague. If we attempt to be more exact, we may note that sociolinguistics
differs from some earlier interests in language-society relationships in that,
following modern views in linguistics proper, it considers language as well as
society to be a structure, rather than merely a collection of items. The sociolinguist’s
task is then to show the systematic covariance of linguistic structure and
social structure – and perhaps even to show a casual relationship in one direction
or the other.
However, although sociolinguists derive much of their
approach from structural linguistics, at the same time they break sharply with
one linguistic trend. This is the approach which treated languages as
completely uniform, homogeneous or monolithic in their structure; in this view
, now coming to be recognized as a pernicious one, differences in speech habits
found within a community were swept under the rug as ‘free variation’. One of
the major tasks of sociolinguistics is to show that
such variation or diversity is not in fact ‘free’, but is correlated with
systematic social differences. In this and in still larger ways, linguistic
DIVERSITY is precisely the subject matter of sociolinguistics.
 |
| example of interaction |
If we want to study about sociolinguistics, we must
know what the definition of sociolinguistics itself is. From the explanation
above, we know that sociolinguistics ware taken from socio that means of people and linguistics that means language. So, we can conclude that sociolinguistics
is language that is connected with pupil condition.
We must know that sociolinguistics have some dimensions,
among other:
1.
The
social identity of the SENDER or speaker is illustrated most clearly by cases
of ‘class dialect’, where speech differences are correlated with social
stratification – such differences perhaps reaching their extreme form in the
caste dialects of India. The same dimension is relevant in cases of difference
between men’s and women’s speech (1944).
2.
The
social identity of the RECEIVER or person spoken to is relevant wherever
special vocabularies of respect are used in addressing superiors. Another
special style of speech conditioned by this factor is ‘baby talk’ as used in
English and many other languages – where this term refers, not essentially to
the way that babies talk, but to the way that adults talk to babies. Still
other types of speech determined y the identity of the receiver are the special
styles used by the Nootka in addressing children, dwarf, hunchbacks, one-eyed
people, and uncircumcised males. In many cases, a special style used in
speaking TO a person is also used in speaking ABOUT him; but the identity of
the person spoken about is rarely, if ever, correlated with an independent
dimension of linguistic variation.
3.
The
third conditioning dimension that of SETTING, comprehends all possibly relevant
elements in the context of communication other than the identities of the
individuals involved. This is exemplified by the special linguistic usage of
Apaches when on the warpath, or by the differences between formal and informal
style which are determined by social setting in most (perhaps all) languages.
Where sharp differences in form and function exist between formal and informal
style, we speak of a situation of DIGLOSSIA; this is found in the
Arabic-speaking countries, in modern Greece, Haiti, German-speaking
Switzerland, and in most of South India (Ferguson 1959).
It should be understood, of course, that the three
dimensions which have been listed are by no means mutually exclusive, but
commonly intersect to condition a particular type of sociolinguistic behavior.
Thus the so-called male and female speech of the Yana involved considerations
of both sender and receiver: ‘male speech’ was used whenever a man was either
the ender or the receiver, while ‘female speech’ was used only between women.
The complex linguistic etiquette of Javanese involves the factors of sender,
receiver, AND setting. It should also be understood that each of these
dimensions may have to be broken down into smaller ones in particular cases.
For example, usage determined by the identity of the sender or receiver may
involve a complex interaction of such factors as age, social rank, and
closeness of kin ties, as is illustrated by Friedrich’s paper in this volume.
4.
Other
dimensions of sociolinguistics are based not so much on the actual diversity of
linguistic behavior, but rather on the scope and aims of the investigator.
Thus, as in other fields, sociolinguistic research can be SYNCHRONIC or
DIACHRONIC. In the realm of the caste dialect of India, we ca point to studies
of both types: focuses primarily on the present-day differences and functions
of caste dialect in a Hindi-speaking village; tries to find historical causes
for the differences between caste dialects of South India.
5.
A
dimension introduced to the discussions of the UCLA Conference by Hoenigswald’s
paper was that of the difference between how people USE languages and what they
BELIEVE about the linguistic behavior of themselves and others. The latter
topic, aptly labeled ‘folk-linguistics’, is of frequent concern to the sociolinguist.
In many past of the world, for example, the native view tend to confuse ‘high
vs. low’ speech, in the sense of formal vs. informal, with ‘high vs. low’ as
referring to the social status of the sender. In such cases, the investigator
must not be deceived into accepting the folk-view as corresponding to actual
linguistic behavior; at the same time, he should realize that the folk-view is
itself a part of the sociolinguistic situation, and worthy of study in its own
right.
6.
Another
dimension is that of the EXTENT of diversity. This term should not be
understood as referring to purely geographical measures, not to simple
linguistic measures, such as the number of shared words. Rather it refers to
difference between parts of a single society or nation as apposed to the
difference between separate societies or nations, and to the difference between
varieties of a single language as against the difference between separate
languages.
7.
A
final dimension to be recognized here is that of APPLICATION – the broader
implications which are inherent in descriptions of sociolinguistic diversity.
Again, three categories may be recognized, corresponding to the interests of
three types of investigator.
The first, reflecting the interest of the
sociolinguist. The second type of application reflects the interest of the
HISTORICAL linguist. The third type of application is that made by the LANGUAGE
PLANNER – the linguist, educator, legislator or administrator who must work
with official policies regarding language use.
Some problems in sociolinguistics are:
- Language, dialect, and idiolect
The difference of these three terms is the definitions
of each. If the spoken language of a person or characteristic possessed by an
individual in a language is called idiolect. Idiolect an individual will vary
with individual idiolect another. If idiolects others can be classified in a
category set is called dialects. So, it is a typical dialect group of
individuals / communities in using the language.
- Verbal repertoire
The term verbal repertoire is defined as the ability
to communicate is owned by the speakers. That is, the speakers are able to
communicate in a variety of languages to others in a variety of speech, it
will be verbal repertoire increasingly broad is owned by the speakers.
- Community languages
Language community is a group of people using the same
language signaling system. Community languages can occur within a group of
people who use the same language and a group of people who use different
languages with terms between them a mutual understanding.
- Duality
Duality means skills / habits possessed by speakers of
the language.
- The function of the language and sociolinguistic
profile
Language has a certain function in the association
among members in accordance with the group / tribe. For example, the Indonesian
language can be the national language, the language of the country, the
official language and the language of unity between the tribes of the nation.
Similarly, the Minangkabau language can be a local language, the language of
instruction at the elementary level grade one and two, the official language in
the event customs, and more.
- The use of language / language ethnographic
In the use of language, speakers must pay attention to
the elements contained in the acts of language and its relation to or influence
on the shape and the election of regional variations.
- Language attitudes
The attitude of the language associated with the
motivation to learn a language. In essence, the language is a courtesy gesture
to react to a situation. Thus, the attitude of language refers to the mental
attitude and behavior on language attitudes. Language attitudes can be observed
between the behavior of others through language or behavior recalled.
- Language planning
Language planning processes associated with language
development, language development, and the politics of language. And afterwards
arranged language planning based on the terms outlined by the policy language.
- Interaction sociolinguistic
Interact sociolinguistic here means talking about the
communicative abilities of speakers. In addition, also discussed the true
meaning of the elements of language as a word / language can have multiple
meanings. That is, the meaning of a word / language depending on the context of
the wearer.
- Language and culture
Language is strongly influenced by culture; everything
that exists in the culture will be reflected in the language.
Differences in the use
of language describing different social circumstances. Certain circumstances
can change the pattern of the language used. This is called sosiolingistics
which previously described above.
REFERENCES
Bright,
William, “Sociolinguistics”, Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference,
(The Hague-Paris, 1964)
Aslinda
and Leni, “Pengantar Sosiolinguistik”, PT Refika Aditama, (Bandung, 2010)
