![]() ![]() Gumperz here identifies two important components of the speech community: members share both a set of linguistics forms and a set of social norms Gumperz also sought to set up a typological framework for describing how linguistic systems can be in use within a single speech community. Gumperz defined the community of speech:Īny human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language usage. This could be done by focusing on the interactive aspect of language, because interaction in speech is the path along which diffused linguistic traits travel. This insight prompted Gumperz to problematize the notion of the linguistic community as the community that carries a single speech variant, and instead to seek a definition that could encompass heterogeneity. They also realized that traits spread as waves from centers and that often several competing varieties would exist in some communities. Dialectologists rather realized that dialect traits spread through diffusion and that social factors were decisive in how this happened. John Gumperz described how dialectologists had taken issue with the dominant approach in historical linguistics that saw linguistic communities as homogeneous and localized entities in a way that allowed for drawing neat tree diagrams based on the principle of 'descent with modification' and shared innovations. The adoption of the concept of the "speech community" as a unit of linguistic analysis emerged in the 1960s. Speech communities may share both particular sets of vocabulary and grammatical conventions, as well as speech styles and genres, and also norms for how and when to speak in particular ways. Such groups can be villages, countries, political or professional communities, communities with shared interests, hobbies, or lifestyles, or even just groups of friends. With the recognition of the fact that speakers actively use language to construct and manipulate social identities by signalling membership in particular speech communities, the idea of the bounded speech community with homogeneous speech norms has become largely abandoned for a model based on the speech community as a fluid community of practice.Ī speech community comes to share a specific set of norms for language use through living and interacting together, and speech communities may therefore emerge among all groups that interact frequently and share certain norms and ideologies. Communities may be de-localized and unbounded rather than local, and they often comprise different sub-communities with differing speech norms. Each speech community has different norms that they tend to share only partially. These assumptions have been challenged by later scholarship that has demonstrated that individuals generally participate in various speech communities simultaneously and at different times in their lives. It has also been assumed that within a community a homogeneous set of norms should exist. Definitions of speech community tend to involve varying degrees of emphasis on the following:Ī typical speech community can be a small town, but sociolinguists such as William Labov claim that a large metropolitan area, for example New York City, can also be considered one single speech community.Įarly definitions have tended to see speech communities as bounded and localized groups of people who live together and come to share the same linguistic norms because they belong to the same local community. It is a concept mostly associated with sociolinguistics and anthropological linguistics.Įxactly how to define speech community is debated in the literature. ![]() ![]() Arnold Lakhovsky, The Conversation (circa 1935)Ī speech community is a group of people who share a set of linguistic norms and expectations regarding the use of language. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |