unlJERSl1llI \~lCrtm BIBLIOTECA

\ \\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ 06" 2 5 6 '#

* P ~O LB

"' '¡:'EC-HA DE YENClíVÚE-NTÓ'

Recuerda devolver o renovar tus libros

antes de la fecha de vencimiento

o MAY 2D'fI~

THE 8()BBS~MíEtAR~ll STUlDlES ~N SOC~OlOGY

h f

Thomas luckmantn

THE BOBBS .. MIERfUll COMPANY, iNC" ~NDtANAPOlIS

\\\\~ '*

l' ,..~

\ ~~

'-li"'/' t L

1,

, )

Univers~da(~

~beroamer~cana

l~) \ L.( () , ")

'\ \ ~~PYright @ 1975 by The BObb:-M~:ill Company. Inc. '\ Printed lO the Umted Stales 01 Amenca

Al! ríghts reserved. No part of this bool< shall be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, íncluding photocopying, recording, or by any information or retrieval system, without written permission from the Publisher:

The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc, 4300 West 62nd Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46268

First Edition First Printing 1975

Llbrary 01 Congress Cataloging in Publication Data_

Luckmann. Thomas. The sociology 01 language. (TIle Bobbs-Merrill studies in sociology) Bibliography: p. l. SocioUnguislics. 1. Tille. P40.L8 301.2'1 74-190B5 ISBN 0-672-61262-3

--,- -~!'

l/he Socio~ogy O·~ language Preface

Introduction

2 The historícal evolution of the problem

3 The nature ot the problem , a, The diachronic perspective on global structures: language and society in

history b. The diachronic perspective: language and social bi9graphy c. The synchronic perspective: interrelation 01 global structures

1. Ecological determinants. of communication 2, Instítutional determinants of communication 3. Linguistic styles or codes evolving in social classes

d. The synchronic perspective: speech act and social situation

4 On the social functions' of language a. The basic semasiological 1unction

1. On the supra-individual level 2. On the individual level

b. Secondary functions 1. The indicative f.unction 2. The phatic function

5 Bibliographic Postscript on the last five years

6' Selected Readings

'3

1 Introductñon

Evidence 01 man's preoccupation with language can be detected even in the early stages of mythological thought. Various religious systems assign an important role to language. In Western culture-though not exclusively there-Ianguage becomes (he object of systematic philosophical inquiry. In the process of division between philosophy and various empírical sciences, language, like other matters of interest, eventually becomes the subject of a distinct sclentific discipline. This discipline has undergone a remarkable development within the last 150 years (E. Cassirer, 1923; H. Pedersen, 1924). Contemporary linguistlcs not only serves as a link between the traditíonal disciplines of the humanities and the social sciences. It can be also considered exemplary to the latter in certain respects, such as descriptive precision and systematic formalization.

The origín of language derives, gene rally, from the social nature 01 mano The existence and the functioning of ~-ª9fL.Q.Dd .. jtlELCbanges-theY-UD-ciB[go_a[e clº-s-.eJy.Jiol<ed..lo-cor:lcrete-social.-str.uctbJres-. and ...thadynamic-1ªlat!Q.mUleJ.'Mgen._ iQpividu.~l§.,---g[Q~ps,_jl)stitutions_a[}cLsoci~.ty. Th.~ very_~gflJLGe_.QLlanguage presupposes-in addition to the necessary physiological prerequisites of speech --':-a ceriafn'r~gularity of human behavíor. Human conduct is based on the reciproc­ity crliace-to-fa;;e-relatiQñs\vhicfi-permits the development of stable social typifica­tions. These are concretely expressed in the varied forme oí family organization. of cooperation and of the division of labor. Th~inult~aL1a.nguagais-'N..a[(ante.d ~Y...§.Qgl~ization~pr.ocesses that are emb5ldd~~L!!l_«29Jl<21§l..!e hi§lQr!Q-ªUI::v~.!i!.IJHº@_· These, in tur!:1...ctªjerroioeJ~EU;1_ºJi9.D.R.qltems_oLsociaLgroups ~Q.jhº-Jli~:_~-tylEl..9,f

_.if!cJlY.!.gy-ªLs. T~ey thereby indirectlydelerm~n~ Jb~.l!~~..!ºrjQªLqDang~....Q1J~g~-ªg"ª§,)->~ -"On the otherhiúld:-onecanl,áfdly'concehíe'of human soci~y, ílJ.c;ll~dual so.~a'ity

and the existence of sOCíaT structures without language. The sóciaHzation of indi­vidual consciousooss -a-;;-dthe social"";';'ol;~üñgof ¡;erson~lit{aferargél:loeter-min-ecf ~~~g-~~~'-'íñ~taCi,I)QWí'processes .. occur cOl1cretely Wilhin a- Kístoncá] 'só"crar­strlfcture and, at the same time, within a specific historicallanguage. Man's action in society cannot be traced back to specific genetic characteristics, nor can it be wholly explained in terms 01 external behavioral constraints. No doubt the ability to speak presupposes specific genetical attributes. and social actjon ís determined by institutional controls, among other things. The motivatíon-ªLº-Q.rJlfu<t.oLacting, ~9~Y{~\l~1.,...d~r.iy§§...ffQ!:rHH:Lindlvjdual' .. s inter:nalízatiOñ.Ot~a~cuHur8. "T~lQRroent ~~o nti nuit~2Lª..9J1tl,lr~)$._p.~53~<;t<?n ~9j;;i.ª,~ q-~i.~.9~~!.!@!!91J'§ .?f.lJ.9ng wb¡ºbJangl(ag~ l§. .. -foremost. The individu~iI a9-ªp-.ts_tQ~thELWOJJ_!LQfr_attitud_e:::._tho_ught~,._and .. value-J?~r~s that -c~~.tl!<Y.t~Lª.,c.Ulture..mail)lyJ1Y~_ªY of lan9ll-ªg~. The transmissjon of a culture over the generatjons takes place mainly through processes ot direct

7

communication. The individual gaíns access to culture-and thereby to society, which he experiences as a structure of patterns ot meaning and behavior that he takes largely tor granted-mainly by way of language. A specitic cognitive "style" of a society and of a social stratum is transmitted in the process of socializatíon by means_Qtlru1..Q.!J9gf}. In the course 01 an ifldiviarral'in)io{rrapfiy~ir6éco~mes a strongly habitualized subjective style of thought and experience, a kind of "inner language". The biographical dimensions of language thus co-determine social action in linguístically articulated patterns .of motivation and in the definitions ot sítuations.

Apart from its mediated functions in an índividual's biography, ~ an immediately importan! role in s.Q.QiaLac.tíans. Linguistic communications and interchanges trigger nonlinguistic interactions or substitute tor them. In view of the interdependence of social structure. culture and language that was brought out by this preliminary outline, it comes as a surprise to discover how superficial soci­ology's interest in language has been until the reeent past. Indeed, this disinterest poses an interesting problem for the sociology ol knowledge and science. The notion of the interpenetration of social structure, culture and language which has become a basic tenet of philosophica,1 anthropology, has remained a largely un­clarified axiom of the empirical social sciences. T o be sure, lip service is paid to this axiom in most textbooks of sociology and cultural anthropology. The attempt to arrive at a precise formulation of this phenomenon and to provide an explana­tory causal analysis for Jt is, however, only in its beginning stage8. Yet such an attempt would certainly have to be listed among the most important tasks for theory and empírical research in sociology, social psychology, and cultural anthro-pology. . ,

Several of the social seienees have already, unwittingly, touched upon questions 01 the sociology of language. It hardly needs tó be mentioned that the sociology of knowledge depends on an analysis of linguistic forms in which thought ano knowledge beco me socially sedimented. If thís discipline has not progressed satis­factorily (apart from excursions into ideological crittcism) the explanation most likely should be 80ught in an insufficient groundíng in the sociology Qf.language. Though the link between the sociology of religíon and the sociolofjY of language appears to be less direct, this ls due mainly to the fact that the socio!ogy of reUgion, by and large. naively accepts the línguistic basis of the socially molded symbolic

words of religions. On the other hand, the importance of the questions raised by the sociology of

language far the sociology of literature is immediately apparent. The uses accruing from a further development of the sociology of language to opin¡on research and the sociological analysis of mass media, propaganda, etc., as well as family soci­ology (tor analyzing secondary socialization processes as welr as choice of an adaptation to marriage partners) hardly needs to be stressed. Other speeialized disciplines among the social scienees have already raised questions related to the problems of the sociology of language. To mentíon sorne: the theory of social control and social stratification, political sociology (the problem of nationalism), and sociologically oriented psychiatry. The fundamental significance of language tor sociological theory is thus f~rther enhanced by a score of questions pertaining

·8

to the sociology of language whích have been raised by a variety of neighboring sub-disciplines.

Nevertheless, in the past sociology of language has not gained the status of a major soeiologieal discipline. This is due in part to the faet that neither general social problems (as in the case 01 family sociology). nor immediate institutional needs (as in industrial sociology or the sOciology of religion and the ehurches) add pragmatic relevance to theoretii::al interest. In part, the reason for this IS the fact that the pertinent theoretical questions were relegated to linguistics. A sociology of language with concepts equally applicable to sociological and linguistic theory and with a body of hypotheses systematically ordered as well as capable of meaningtul operationalization does not exist as yet. Several attempts in that diree­tion (by J. Bram, 1955; A. Capell, 1966; M. eohen, 1956; J. O. Hertzler, 1965) must be considered unsatisfactory. Yet the history of philosophieal and scientific preoe­cupations with language oHers important contríbutions which eould be used to advantage in the theory-formation of the sociology of language. In various branches of science-from psychology to the various philologies-a great number of relevant research reports has aecumulated. After a number of rather laborious initial attempts (some of which date back several decades) a renewe'd interest in problems 01 the sociology of language has developed in recent years. Some promising new departures have .been made, and there can be no doubt that continuous increase in scientific activity is taking place in this field. (S. Lieberson, 1966; W. Bright, 1966b; J. Fishman, 1968). Sociology is thus belatedly tollowing a comparable but earlier development which appeared in cultural anthropology (H. Hoijer, '1954; O.H. Hymes, 1964c; J.J. Gumperz and O.H. Hymes. 1964).

If the stage 01 development of the sociology of language thus cqnnot yet bear comparison to other sociological sub-disciplines (such as the sociology of stratifi­eation and social mobility) the cumulation of research is beginning and a system­atic theory is at least in sight. I shall attempt first to present those scientific tradítions that have led to a slow crystallization of the problem in the sociology of language. Following this, I shall describe the present situation of the problem, drawing on the theoretical endeavors and research findings in sociology and its neighboring disciplines, Finally, I shall try to formulate the social functions of language in a fashion which make it possible to locate the questions, and perhaps also some of the answers. of the socíology of language in a larger framework of sociological theory.

2 The Historical Evolution Ql_."tbe-J~?r.o.b.lelli·-~-~~~-·-_·_-"'·_· __ ·_···., .. ,_.~.

From its origins Western philo~.9..P.b't .. ~.~_?J:?~~D_Bre.Qg.E!-:'E~Q~lttUlJ~.E~!~~Q~§blg ~e~we~~.U~!1~2.~!!l~Q.wle.Qg~.:_The relevant question ter the sociology of language concerning the relationship be~@O.langJJa9e.....c_ultl.jr-ª--and§Q.ciejY....b.Q.W.:

9

ever, only began to evolve duri.':!R!!lJL6./:maíssance....Giambattista Vico approached ffiequestlOndírectly, Anthony Ashley Cooper Shaftesbury obliquely. It runs through the thought of Johann Georg Hamann and Johann Got1fried Herder anQ finds systematíc treatment in the worl< of Wilhelm von Humboldl. The historical attempts at a clearer articulation of the problem are closely interwoven with other movements in the hístory of ideas (E. Cassirer, 1923). TJ1_ey'.~~n be f~!y u~g~~~1QQ.q . only in r,elationJoJbª- ,dlsJ.luJ§,. º_~t,Yv.~""EW,J~_~§tioQ~Ji?tié ªDd...emp¡rjcísts.Gho.Qt~oJ phll()"sQp.fiy-~aIiQurffie-role-oTI~!1~g.':1.ªg!?_J.I:t!b§~RfQ.G.f3_s$.;.Qf;Jmowing-. ,,- Fgi-Von-Rurriboldf-¡ang~ag~_,!Ele[~,~~mS __ a_brj.Q9.~ ,.I;>-~~.w~.~~n. Jh~ ,~u~,i~c!i':'ity of índividua"lcoñs-Cfo'ü·sness"ana the óbjectiyity,º,fJt)9,,[liD1:~h?:~J~,~9,!l§.~[tl!!~9J~,,~§fi~1 procésse's'.1-theí'''iñner'speech-f¿irm·,í'-6bJectivates a world view and, as von Hum-

b'alar poiñts out most explicitly in the introduction to his book on Kawi language, decisively influences individual thought and action.2 The continuing importance of von Humboldt's work in the shaping of linguistic theory, particularly in Germany, cannot be overshadowed by the shorter-lived successes of opposing movements of thought both in the 19th and the 20th centuries. Without specifying von Hum-. boldt's influence in detail 1 would lil<e to draw attention to the Neo~Humboldtian "school" in contemporary linguistics. (H. Basilius. 1952). Leo Weisgerber, who can be considered the dean 01 the Neo-Humboldtian school in linguistics, sees lan­guage as an "intermediate world" which enables the individual to grasp reality by way of linglJistically mediated objects of subjectíve experience (L. Weisgerber, 1953). The perspectivism of human actíon and thought is rooted in the fact that reality ís mediated by language. Different views of reality are concretely'deter­mined by the different structures of .Ianguages. These can be seen as socially solidified patterns of "documentations of positions" that were taken in the past with regard to reality (P. Hartmann. 1959). These past "positions" steer current "positions" of members in a language community. An analysis of the linguistic fields of a language reveals that the structure of these patterns is divided into "fields" (G. Ipsen, 1924, 1932; J. Trier, 1932; W. Porzig, 1934; L. Weisgerber, 1953; for a detailed review see S. Oehmann, 1953).

The various differelJt'~po§jtions~:_taken_by-~various"social :groups, .s.trata,_ and~ l1i~tªRbQjj9~J!i~"i'~í~¡pg"'7w.Qol@" s9cietiesJead ,to differences.in the .character _acd the degr~ª--o1.JheiLljl]guistíc ,c1jfferemt,iªtipf.LQUeality,. T o _~DJ19-!lª- í€.VLexampJfl,S __ .

~h~dJnJhe._vast.literatl,JrtL9~_!.~~~~_~L~~~.!h~~l!~~~~~tlated _~~~nir1g ~~ .. ~~~._~ starlit sky tor the _ºr~,eks and tor the- Chinese,..or tc.>.U~~ ,~ea-'.!!?,r: ~andJb~ ,~rQ.an. dweIJer;' the -dTtfe¡entia~~_9 l1)~ar.ll!Jg -ºL y'~g~t~JJ.q[l.f9Uh~tSouth.Am,ºr!f~.n_.9.él.u,~h.Q" arld-fortFle'farmer;'the vario~.~,c:l!~fE!~elJtR(3,rc.ept,iQns reflected in theJL1f)gu!,!ge§_91" the--wt1iré'~settlef'an(f ífíe Navajo; the diverse vi~vy?_ QJ ,the,Jopography of, lheir

~ -, '" "- .- -. ,-:.- ."' - '-.-- .... _-

1. "Language Is not an independent productlon of one individual only, ·but always belongs lo the whole natlon; 'ji Is there Ihal new generalíons receive language Irom t~eíf forefathers. lo language the various opinions of every age, generaUon, raok, characler, and mlnd 01 a people, a nalion, and finally of the whole human raee are blended, aod in Ihe shifls of words: and languages eo íncreasing com~unity oi all mankind i~ ~c~ieve? .~here:by. language medla~es between subjectivity and objectivlty, between a necessanly limitad IndlVlduahly and an all-embraclng being." (W. von Humboldt. 1820-1822: 24),

2. "Although created by nations, languages dominate their creators, thay keep nations prísoners in a determínate circle and constitule or. at the v6ry besí, indicale the particularlty 01 national character." (W. von Humboldt, 1820-22: 313).

10

environment by people of different dialects; the difterent distinctíons of ki~shí.e.J~ . differenl··langu~g~s; '_.. . -",., . .' "-".,,- ,. ...

"Alihou-ghvon Humboldt's influence is particularly strong in German philology, it ís by no means restricted to that area. Von Humboldt's concept of language imprinted itself upon an intellectual tradition which extends from classical phílology to romanticismo In this context, the relevant contributions to linguistic and cultural history by Karl Vossler should be mentioned, in particular his work on the relation­ship between language. language community and "civilization" (1929) and the in1erdependence of language, natíonalism and religion (1932). The studíes on style by Leo Spitzer show an acute perceptíon of social interconnections (1928, 1931, 1948). His research in historical semasiology is an exemplary achievement in the díachronic socíology of language. Also the worl~s 01 Walter Porzig (1950) and Bruno Snell (1952) contain important contributions toward a clarification 01 the functions of language. Within the framework of semantíc history. Snell's studies on the development of Greel, thought (1955) show the reciprocal influence be­tweeh language and the development of consciousness,

The traditíon of linguistícs which was influenced by von Humboldt's notions of the relationship between "inner speech form" and world view has been mainly presented in the garb of German philosophical idealism. Despite efforts to provide a firmer methodological foundation tor a combined "energetic" (process-oriented) and "content-orienfed" approach to language, this tradition was gene rally re­jeeted, ignored or pushed aside by the various schools of structuralism, which until recently constituted the mainstream of modern Iinguistics and which were predominently "antí-mentalistic" and concerned with pllonology. Only recently has a possible convergence of these two schools beco me conceívable. The foremost theoretícal presupposii1ons (in linguistic theory as well as in the methodology of science) of descriptive structuralism have begun to weaken. The consequences of this reorientation, triggered mainly by Noam Chomsky (1957), are not yet fore­seeable (cf. J.J. Katz, 1964; E. Bach, 1966; M. Bierwisch, 1966; U. Weinreich, 1966). In thís connection American cultural anthropologísts and anthropological linguists appear to have overcome a certain provinciallsm characteristic of previ­ous generations of American structuralists. Also significant IS the fact that "struc­turalist" methods have been successfully combined with major elements of Hum­boldtian concepts of language in a number of recent publications. 1 am mainly referring to the theory of semantics developed by Stephen Ullmann (1951, 1962). Hans Glinz's analysis of the "inner form" of German (1952) and Helmut Gipper's work (1959, 1963).

It IS not ditficult to discern that this linguistic tradition has much to offer to the sociofogy of language, The sociologist is led to reformulate I,sy conceptions of this tradition in the following theses. Realms of meaning and fields wíthin one language tha1 have dífferent structures can be traced to differentiated ínterests and life­patterns 01 ecologically and socio-historical1y determined groups, institutions, and strata as well as generatíons within which the communication processes of a language community take place. Theoretically, it al so makes sense to assume that the "inner forms" of different languages are generally based on the long-term worl<ings of social-structural conditions as these have affected the history of a language, or rath~r, a language communíty. It is, however, much more difficult to

11

translate these assumptions into more specific working hypotheses.1l is a long and difficult way from the point where one can discern (ad hoe) specifie struetural eonditions for specific linguistic proeesses and forms to the point where one can develop a systematic theory on the relationship between social structure and language. Nevertheless, the sociology of language has produeed a continuous!y growing number of studies on the differentíatíon of linguistic fields and realms (ef. the bibliography in S. Oehmann, 1953: 125 and P. Zínsli n,o.), The systematie analysis of the cumulative effects of social-struetural eonditions on the composi­tions of linguistic fields and realms can only be made after an evaluatlon of such studies by a historieaUy oriented sociology of 1anguage. It will be lhe task of a synchronically oriented sociology of language, on the other hand, to investigate the scope and direetion of the influence of a tal<en-for-granted "inner speech form" on socialization. role acUng and the understanding of self and reality. An­other promising research area will have to deal wlth questions coneerning the influence of the differentiated "distribution" of realms and fields of meaning on customary behavior. aetion patterns and institutionally determined definitions of situations within a soeiety.

Although the influence of von Humboldt's concept of language on a major intellectual tradition in linguistics has been considerable. it would be inadvisable to speak of it as an organized "school". The same can be said about structuraHsm, the leading approach in modern linguistics. Only on the surface do these trends appear consolidated. The mere attempt of a short deseription of the main sources . of structuralism from the "Neo-Grammarians", J. Baudouin de Courtenay and Ferdinand de Saussure. to the Prague and Copenhagen "circles" and the genera­tion of American linguists marked by the imprínt of Leonard Bloomfield would go far beyond the scope of this essay (eL H. Pedersen, 1924; E, Cassirer. 1923; J.B. Car~oll, 1952; J. Vachek, 1964; N.S. Trubetzl<oy, 1964; also A.R. Díebold, 1964). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the different positions of structuralism have in eommon: 1) the rejection of conceptions of language followíng organismic analogies; 2) strict formatization of deseriptive research (partieularly in phonology and morphology) based on the definifion of phonemes as smallest signjficant units of linguistic analysis; 3) the need of delimitation against psyehology; and 4) efforts to overcome the conventional "philologícal" restrictíon to literary languages. For­mal structuralism, consistent with positivistic and behavioristic thinking, insists on a radical severance of language, considered as an "autonomous" system, from its psychological presuppositions and social foundation (cf. L. Bloomfield, 1933; L. Hjelmslev. 1943).

For the clarification of the concept of language as a system linguistics is greatly indebted to Ferdinand de Saussure (1915). According to de Saussure the meaning of linguistic signs is determined by their positional value in the sign-system. A heuristic bracketíng ot the total psychological and social situation in whích the sign system functions is therefore permissible. The analysis of the sign·reJations con­sidered in Isolation is the tasl~ of the línguistique interne. De Saussure who was 'strongly influenced by Emile Durkheim (cf. Doroszewski. 1933) never overlool<ed

12

the social character of language, however. and specifically stressed its peculiq,r position among "social institutions",3 Linguistic signs make their appearance in social situations. Though a subjeet matter of the linguistique interne in their internal referenee~system. linguistic signs beco me the subject matter of semiology which de Saussure regarded as an essential part of social psychology. He asserted that the "linguistic problem" was primarily a semiological problem (F. de Saussúre, 1955: 34). He granted. the faet that semiology, as. he conceived of it. did not yet exist, but believed that jt was destined to close a gap in the social sciences (1955: 33). It is clear that de Saussure's Durkheimian conception of semiology coincides largely with the scope of a sociology of language. It is interesting 10 note that major tenets of de Saussure's sign theory have a close correspondence with the semiot· ¡es of Charles W. Morris (1938, 1946) which have been of considerable signifi­canee in the recent history of American science. Morris was directly influenced by súch divergent sources as C.S. Peirce, George H. Mead and the "Víenna circle". Another outstanding linguist of the "Geneva School", Charles BaBy, took an ap­proach to language similar to de Saussure. He, too. considered language as a social institution, but an institution that forms a closed system: it first must be analyzed without reference to psychologieal or sociologieal "quasi-explanations". The linguistic contributions of J. Vendryes (1923) are founded on similar .general assu m ptlons.

Durkheim was also the source of other impulses toward a sociology of language. His interest in the problem of social integration led him from a morphology of social structure to the investigation of the forms of collective eonsciousness sustained by these structures. While his attention was primarily drawn to the problem of moral cohesion versus anomíe and, thus, to religion, he did not fail to see the importanee of language in the stabilization of consciousness in social processes.4 Research on the interdependence of social structure and forms of symbolic thought and representatíons directed the attention of Durkheim (as well as his collaborators and students) toward language constructs in which forms of thinl<ing harden and beeome binding for the individual. Emile Durkheim and Mareel Mauss' study on the social basis of primitive forms of elassification (1901/1902) and the worl< ot Mau­rice Halbwachs (1925. 1950) on the social basis and collective determination of memory touch upon questions of immediate concern to the sociology of language (also cf. M.M. Lewis, 1947). On the other hand, the very absence of a well-founded linguistic paradigm in his sociological views of language apparently enticed Durk­heim to proceed, in his theories, rather too abruptly from models of social structure to highly complex symbolie categories (cf. A.R. Diebold, 1964: 259; R. Kónig, 1967:

3. "We have just seen Ihat language is a social inslltulion; but several features sel il aparl from other politica!, legal, etc. institutions." (Ferdinand de Saussure, 1959: 15).

4. "There is more: without language, we would no! hav6, so lo speak, general ideas; lar il is the word which. in fixing Ihem, gives to concepts a consistency sufficient lar them to be able to be handled conveniently by the mind. It is language, then, that has allowed us to raise ourselves aboye pure sensalion; and il is not necessary lo demonstrale Ihat language ¡s, in Ihe lirsl degree, a social thing." (Emile Durkheim, 1956: 77).

13

312f.). Nonetheless it must be admíUed that thís approach proved to be an inspira­tion for ethnologícally and linguistically more sophísticated research on similar problems, e.g., in the work of ClaLida Lévi-Strauss (1962). .

Antoine Meillet, who joined the staft of the Année Sociofogíque as referree for linguistics upon Durl<heim's invitation, published his own study on the change of meaning in that journal (1905-06). Following Durkheim's criteda he, too, conceives of language as a social phenomenon which transcends individual conscíousness (exteríorité a l' índívldu) and coerces (coercitíon) the individual. According to Meil-

. let, the explanatíon tor the change of meaning in language has to be sought in social processes· and he proceeds to suggest several specific socio-linguistic hypotheses, among them one which proposes that the contraction and expansion of meaning depends on specifiable characteristics of the social group in which these processes of change occur. Meillet takes tar granted that the stock of words within a language community Is socially distributed and differentiated, a view that was by no means considered obvious before the recent growth of the sociology of language . .5 Durl<heim's influence is also clearly observable in Marcel Granet's studies on Chinese thought patterns (1934), notably in his attempt to interpret categories of space and time in Chinese culture and language in a sociological perspective. The wark of Alf Sommerfelt (1962a) is another example 01 Durl<l)eim's ¡ntluence on linguistics. The Durl<heim·Mauss essay dírectly inspired and moti­vated Sommerfelt's analysís ol the interdependence of language and social struc­ture among the Australian Arunta (1938; cf. also 1954). According to Sommerfelt that interdependence resulted in a certain parallelism of social structure, cognitive organizatíon and language categoríes.

Despite the promising prospects tor a sociology of language along Durkheimian Hnes of thought, des pite the penetration ot Durkheim's influence in linguistics (W. Doroszewski, 1933; A Sommerfelt 1924 (1962) and 1932 (1962), despite the continuity of the Durkheimian tradition in French cultural anthropology which joins Durkheim to Mauss and both to Lévi-Strauss (d. M. Merleau-Ponty, 1959) there emerged no Durl<heim-oriented sociology 01 language. Marcel Cohen, one of the most distinguished French linguists, with many linl<s to the Durkheim. tradition in sociology, a colleague of Meíllet, the linguistic co-editor of (he third series of the Année Sociologique presents himself, theoretically, as a historical materialist. His bool, Pour une Sociologíe du Langage (1956} which provides a wealth of factual and bibliographical information of considerable use to the sociologist of language, develops neither a Durkheimian nor an otherwise systematíc sociology of lan­guage.

Another source of theoretical efforts and empírical research that was ímportant in the formulation of promising perspectives tor the sociology ot language was that school of thought in American social psychology which was 610sely linl<ed to sociology especially with the work of Charles H. Cooley-and whose main philo­sophical inspiration came from pragmatism, from Charles S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey. The founding father of this theoretical tradition, George H. Mead (1934), developed a highly original theory of socialization which stressed, in con-

5. l/A language. given as such. contains as many specíal vocabularjes as ¡hare are autonomous social groups in the society to which Iha! language belongs." (A. Meillet, 1948: 251).

14

vincing and detailed analyses, the role of communicative processes for the devel­opment of individual consciousness and personality structure. Following Mead an increasing number of American sociologists and social psychologists has begun to examine the functions of communicative processes tor the socialization of children, as well as for the learning of role patterns, for the stabilizatíon of conduct, tor the evolution of self-images, etc. "Symbolic Interactionists" and Meadian "role­theorists", as well as sociologists and social psychologists somewhat less directly influenced by Mead, have generally proven to be more open to problems directly linked to the interests of the sociology of language than those coming from differ­ent traditions (cf. C.W. Milis, 1939, 1940; J.H.S. Bossard, 1943, 1945; F. Elkin, 1946; A. Strauss, 1959; E. Goffman, 1959; R.R. Wohl and A. Strauss, 1958; M.B. Scott and S.M. Lyman, 1968). To gain greater precision, future research concern­ing the influence of role- and class-determined repertoires on social behavior and self-images will have to make more extensive use 01 línguistic and "ethnolinguis­tic" methods. while remaining true to the significant questions about human com­munication, consciousness and self that were raised by Mead and his followers.

In European psychology the ¡nterest in language never completely disappeared from the scene, as witnessed by the worl< of Wilhelm Wundt, and later Karl Buehler (1934) and Fríedrich Kainz (1954). While traditional associative psychology re­mainad basically useless for problems with which the sociology 01 language is concerned, the work of Jean Piaget on the relationship between language and thought processes offers a contribution to the understanding of the línguistic­cognitive level of socialization (1926,.1950) the signíficance 01 which is not yet entirely historica!. Piaget's theory has been partly revised and partly added to by the brilliant research on speech and thought conducted by Lev Semíonovic Vy-

.. gotsky (1934, 1939) who clearly established their early genetic independence. Vigotskyalso criticized Piaget's notion of an egocentric phase in relation to la n­guage acquisition and showed the social character of both cognitive and linguistic development.

The behavioristic theory of learning, long predominant in the United States, had almost nothing in common with eilher linguistics ar the probJems of the sociology of language (cf. A.A. Diebold, 1964). The attempt to bridge the gap between individual and social psyehology by way 01 an "interbehavioral" theory of language (N.H. Pronko, 1946; S1. C. Ratner, 1957) never 8eems to have evolved beyond the programmatic 8tage. Only recently has a genuina rapprochement between linguis­ties and psychology taken place. It is evidenced by the emergence of an interdisci­plinary lield of research, psycholinguistics. Now that the neglected problem of the relationship between language and thought has been taken up agaín in academic psycho!-:Jgy,the development of psycholínguistics has become of considerable ¡nterest to the sociology of language. The first moves in this direction came mainly from several neobehaviorists, who recognized the futility 01 conventional behav­íoristic learning theory for an understanding of speech and language (cf. G.A. MiIler, 1951 and G.A. Miller, 1965). Further impulses emanated from cognitive psychologists interested in a linguístically more sophisticated approach to their work in cognltion (d. R.W. Brown, 1956). The strongest ímpetus to the emergence of psycholinguistícs was probably given by the increasing contaets of some psy~ chologists (John B. Carroll in the begínníng, then Roger W. Brown, Eric H. Len-

15

neberg and others) with anthropological linguistics (ethnolinguistics) precisely at Ihe time when an ardent debate on the relationship between language, culture, and thought was ta!dng place in this discipline (c1. J.B. Carroll, 1953; R.W. Brown and EH. Lenneberg, 1954; E.H. Lenneberg, 1953). Sorne of the research results rele­vant to the sociology of language will be mentioned later in the systematíc presen­tation. The excellent review of this development by A. Richard Diébold (1964) should be immediately mentioned, however, as should the volumes of collected reports on the state of research (Ch. E. Osgood and Th. H. Sebeok, 1954; S. Saporta, 1961. Cf. also the article of Hans J. Hummel in the Handbuch der Em­pirischen Sozialforschung, Vol. /1).

In contradistinction to psychology, cultural anthropology never lost íts theoretical congern with and research interest in language. Even before a systematic articula­tion of the question how language, culture and social structure are linked together, languages of primitive societies were ínvestigated to gain insight into their culture -quite apart from the obvious ¡nterest in one of the culture's main components. The analysis of languages in close connection with the analysis of culture looks bacl< on an unbroken tradition in the French ethnological school, in the English school of social anthropology, from Bronislaw Malinowski to E.E. Evans-Pritchard and John R. Firth. in Continental "Vóll,erkunde" and the American cultural anthro­pology where, in this context. the dominant figure of Franz Boas should be particu­larly mentioned. (n addition to this general work on language and culture specific questions of immediate interest to the sociology 01 language were occasionally raised in these anthropological traditions, tor example, the problem ot specíal languages (B.A. van Gennep, 1908) and language taboos (D. Westermann, 1939).

The theoretically more ambitious ques1ion of the relationship between language and world view, however, was not po sed seriously again until about. 100 years after

. it had been raised by van Humboldt. Interestingly enough, ít was in American cultural anthropology where interest in this question was reawal<ened. Edward Sapir, in particular, kept up interest in the question at a time when structuralism (as defined by Bloomfield) very definitely turned its bacl< on it. Sapir did not support the view that language determines culture and the personality of ¡ts speakers without reservations. More precisely he vaccillated between extreme and modified formulations of this view. Neverthe[ess, he asserted time and again the importance of language for the social objectivation of a world view and a conception of realíty.6 His ethnological and linguistie work reflects this basic theoretical position (1921, 1929; eL also D.G. Mandelbaum, 1949). Sapir's student Benjamin Lee Whorf, on the other hand, evidently based on a strong version of Sapir's view the assumption that thought and culture are linguistically determined. Using material trom the Hopi language and culture, he tried to trace the linguistic roots in the Hopi conceptions of space, time and eausality, as well as the infJuence of sueh concepts on specific behavior patterns (1956). No doubt Whorf had tal<en up many of Sapir's notions, which, in turn, can be traced back to von Humboldí. Furthermore, he was not the only one to propound this view of language. Dorothy O. Lee had reached similar

6: "Language is a gulde lo social realily . . . human beings do nol Uve ín the objecliva world alona, nor alane in Ihe worid 01 social aclivily as ordlnarily understood bu! are vary much al Ihe merey al Ihe particular l<'lnguage which has become Ihe medium 01 exprassion of their sociely." (E. Sapir. 1929: 207).

16

eonclusions independently of Whorf, while working on Wintu language and culture (1938, 1944, 1950, 1959). It was Whorf's trenchant formulation of this position, however. which provoked the heated scientific debate of the fifties (H. Hoijer, 1954), the ramífications of which still continue to influence the current state of ethnolínguistics. Against Whorf's position various kinds of objections were soon raised. Among them were: a) the customary phildsophical criticism against the presuppositions of "relativistic" theses in general (M. Blacl<, 1959); and, b) accusa­tions of tautology, sinee Whorf's conclusions on the relationship between lan­guage, culture and thought were all exclusively based on linguistic evidence (J.H. Greenberg, 1954; RL Miller, 1968).

On the other hand, attempts were also made to systematize and further develop the Sapir-Whorf position, The crudely deterministic elements were to be separated from the relativistic elements of the "theory", and empirically testable hyp01heses were to be fermulated on the basis 01 the latter (E.H. Lenneberg, 1953; H Hoijer. 1954; F. Fearing, 1954; J.T. Watefman, 1957; G.L. Trager,' 1959; R.P. Gastil. 1959; J.A. Fishman, 1960). A certain influence of linguistic-cultural categories on percep­tions (A.J.·Hallowell, 1951). memory (L. Doob, 1957), etc., could hardly be deníed. That human processes of thought were generally influeneed by syntactic and semantie structures-even though thínldng and speaking are not identical (L.S. Vygotsky. 1962}-was hardly ever seriously questioned. It also makes sense to presuppose a certain affinity between a specific language and a specific culture if the two were línked with each other for a long perlod of time.

There remain, however, questions of immediate interest to 1he sociology of language which have not been satisfactorily answered in this dispute. One such question concerns the exact amount of influence whieh language exerts on con­duet, thinking and judgement. Another reters to the specífication of levels of linguistic structures involved in these processes. Still others pertain to the kind of differences (if any) that exist between different languages and cultures in the d'egree of their interdependence. Furthermore, are there levels of reality-percep­tion which are Jluniversal", and others which differ according to a specific lan­guage? In order to determine the validity of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, one first must make a distinction between linguistie structure as such and culturally regu­lated use of language, between "collective" cultural objectivations and their "indi­vidual" subjective actualization, between perceptual discrimination and habitual experience (el. D .. Hymes, 1964c: 117).

The most striking achievements in this direction were made on the level of experiences that are direetly linl<ed to perception (mainly perception ot eolors). Sophístícated research designs were developed in this area (R.W. Brown and E.H. Lenneberg, 1954; E. H. Lenneberg and J.M. Roberts, 1956; R.W. Brown, 1957; H. Maclay. 1958; cf., also H.C. Conl<lin, 1955 and J. St. Goodman, 1963). Although they are definitely not irrelevant, these achíevements are of subordinate interest for the general theoretical problem of the relatíonship between culture and lan­guage. On the level of perception-linked habitual experience the role of language and the role of a specifie language as factors in directing attention and motivating habituation can be demónstrated. However, the analysis ef the influence of Ilnguis­tic structures on eomplex thought processes, sueh as causal reasoning and cul­tural semantic configurations (taxonomíes, cosmological representations, etc.),

17

still faces extraordinary difficulties in .methodology and res~arch teCh.nique. The "evidence" and "counter-evidence" pertaining to the Saplr-Whorf vlew of lan­guage and culture are difficult to evaluate (ct. H, Hoijer, 1951; C.F. ando F.M. Voegelin, 1957; Sto Olamond. 1960; A. Capell, 1960; R.W. Westcott, 1960.' A.C. Mahr, 1961, 1962; M. Mathiot, 1962; R.L. Miller, 1968). However, even. In the current state of the debate (cf. R.P. Gastil, 1959; O. Hymes, 1.961b) th~re IS hope that the diHiculties facing these inquiries-which are of considerable Importance to the sociology of language-will not remain insurmo~~table.

The debate that was triggered by Whorf and the empmcal research undertaken in its wake were instrumental in freeing the study of langu~ge. fr~m t~e. narrow confines imposed on it by descriptive structuralism: Attentlon In IIngUlstlcs was again devoted to problems also of considerable interest to ~nthropology and psychology. Even epistemology, linguistic theory a~d ps~chologlcal and anthropo* logical research were no longer kept in complete Isotabon from each other. The fascination with the "theory", which claimed that culture and thought were deter­mined by linguistic structures, however, had another and less f?rtuna~e tempo:ary consequence. It led to a one-sided view of "causal" and "functlonal" I~t~.rrelatlon-

h'ps of "social" structure, culture and language in which the pOSSlblhty 6f the :e~erse dírection 01 "causality" or "functional dependen ce" was at first neglecte? Nobodywill question the assumptíon that linguistic processes.presuppo~e p~ychlC processes. But in the face of linguístic determini~m stresslng o~~ dlrectlon of influence this assumption needs to be translated Into more speclflc hypothese~ on the s~biective basis of the objective structure ot lingu~stic sign sy~:e~s.7~n~11 this is accomplished~ psychological attempts at explan~tlon of speclflc hngulstlc processes (for example, the "laws" of analogy) can. clalm. n~ ~ore .than ~d ~oc

lausibility. It is difficult to estímate how much the vanous disciplines Investlgatlng ~he psychological basls of linguistic proces~es as, tor exam~le, developmental psychology, the psychiatric st.udy of aphasl~ (ef. K. Goldste~n, 194~ and E.C, Carterette, 1966), schizophrenla (J.S. Kasamln, 1944), and braln ~hyslolo~y (E.C. Carterette, 1964) will contribute to firm theoretícal foundat¡o~s of th.ls qu~stlon. Nor can one confidently predict how much the djfferent theoretlcal onent~tlon~. from phenomenology to {neo-)behaviorism, will finall~ ha~e.to offer to understandlng the nature of the psychologícal determination of IIngulstlc processes and structures and to the measurement of the degree of this determination ..

Questions which are of a more immediate concern tor t~e s~cl~log~ of language are those that deal with the influence of culture, the socIal dlstnbutlon o! kn?~I­edge, and social structure on linguistic forms, styles, language use and IInguls~lc change. In recent years. lnterest in these que:.:ions has grow~ at an exp~nentlal rateo A number of studies to which I shal1 return In the systematlc part of thls study indicate the wide range of problems facing the sociology ot language (cf., espe­cially, D. Hymes, 1964; J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 1964; H.G. Smith, 1966; W. Bright, 1966a; J. Fishman. 1968). It should be added that the problems of the

7 "What must be the fundamental anthropological contribution lo any semiotic disclplln? ~~ the~ry the empifical field study of systems of sígns in systems 01 use, seems tos.t from ~Ight (Del! Hymes. 1964b) and: "The sociolínguist's task Is Ihen to show the systematlc ~ova(lan~e af Hnguistíc struc!ure and s~cial. ~Iruclur~-and parhaps eIJen lo show a causal relalloflshíp In cne dírection or the olher. (Wllham Bnght. 196Gb).

18

sociology of language touch on sorne aspects of mass-communication analysis and smnll.group research. Specialists in "content analysis" were extremely slow to grasp the variegated dependence of "content" on linguístíc forms. On the other hand. linguistic analyses about the role of mass media in the levellíng of regional and class dialects all too otten are done in blíthe ignorance of more systematic sociological approaches. Small group research provided formal evidence for the stability of communication patterns in specific situations. Much worl< remains to be done, however, in the description and explanation of continuíty and change of aCtual speech-styles and styles of actíon within such matrices. This should prove a fertile field for "micro-analytic" research in the sociology of language.

3 The Natura of the Problem

The views of Wilhelm von Humboldt on the relationship between language and world view, the theory of Emile Ourl<heím on the influence of social structure on cultural configurations, and the arguments of George H. Mead on the role of communícation in socialization processes can be regarded as classical statements on the various perspectives in which language appears to be of utmost significance in the emergence and survivaJ of human societíes. The further development and ·specification of these statements in linguistícs, the philological disciplines, cultural anthropology and social psychology form the background from whích the problems of a sociology of language slowly began to emerge as questions that called tor treatment in' a sociological context.

Research in the other disciplines concerned with language is of course deter­mined by the specific interests and the conceptual framework of their theoretical traditions; on the other hand, research in sociology of language in any strict sense of the term is sml in its early·stages. In order to arrive at a meaningful description of the range of questions that constitute what may be called a sociology of lan­guage, it will be, therefore, necessary to do several things simultaneously. The questions which are central to the sociology of language may or may not have been central to the disciplines in which they have been originally [aised. Hence it IS not enough to have traced briefly the derivation 01 these questions from the theoretical traditions of disciplines that were historically most directly involved in the study of language. It is also necessary to explícate the connection which these questíons have with general social theory.

Language as a system-Ia langue in contradistínction to la paro/e, to use the terminology of Ferdinand de Saussure-is a term at the same level 01 abstraction as that of social structure ~nd culture. Language is a supra-individual structure, in Durkheim's terms it is a social fact. But language Is not identical with social structure and culture. Social structure can be regarded as eilher a system of actions or institutions depending on one's theoretical perspective. Only limited aspects of a language-and then only under special conditions-become subject to direct institutional control, e.g., "taboo"~words or the linguistic "Iegislation" of

19

the Académie Francaise. Only occasionally do they become more or less definitive and self-sufficient components of institutional processes, e.g., ritual performances, At any rate, language is not primarily an element of the institutional structure; nor does language as a system perform the limited functions of a specialized institu­tional sphere,8 Furthermore, language is not a "part" (sub-system) of culture or world view. Incidentally, world view is understood here as that subjectively mean­ingful configuration of elements that ls typically derived and "selected" from the culture by a typical individual member of a society. Language is more directly rooted in the bio-physical nature of man than ls culture, Language is also but one

\

\ or several formal structures, although the most important one, in which culture \ becomes objectivated: Language is m?r~.system.aticaUy orga~íz~~ than culture as " a whole. It also is more obviously and mtlmately hnked to the individual. Language ~eVidently plays a central part in the process~s of soci~1 obj~ctivation and social transmission of such thought, value, and attltude conflguratlons as have a rele-vanee and validíty that goes beyond individual experience. The autonomy of lan­guage is of a different kind than that of an institutional sphere. for example. the political. within the social structure, or a cultural pattern of ideas (e.g., monotheism) within the culture, It matters little whether the relationships of language, culture and social structure are interpreted "functionally" or historically and causally: language cannot be compared in either view to the internal interdependence of the sub­systems in culture and social structure, Nor can language be likened to the rela­tionship of one sub-system, e.g., the economy. to the overall institutional system.

Language is a sign system (cf. F, de Saussure, 1955; A. Schutz, 1955; Ch. W. Morris, 1938). The basie meaning of a linguistic sign, its signification, is as an element in a system. It also has "accidenta'" aspects of meaning. These stem from the socially. culturally and "privately" differentiated relevance systems that determine the contexts of language use and that originally (in the process .of language acquisition) determined the sedimentation of experience in individual biographies as well as the linguistic forms which served to classify and "file away" such experience. But the elementary signification of a linguistic sign which is determined by ¡ts position in the supra-individual, quasi-ideal sign-system is rela­tively independent from ¡ts halo of accidental meanings, The system of signs is a network of relations that established the connection between sound form and pattern of experience, as its "reference", as an intersubiectively valid and subjec­tively intelligible (and "teachable") type/token to type/token relationship (cf. S. Ullmann, 1951; H, Kronesser. 1952; P. Hartmann, 1959). Saving that a sign-system "establishes" such a connection is of course merely a figure of speech: this connection was "established" in past cammunicative acts. Any given sign-system thus has an a priori character as far as ¡ts speakers are concerned at any given moment of language use. The semantic scope is fixed by the "Iocation" or the "positíonal value" of the sign within the semantic field (el. J. Trier, 1932; W. ~o:zi~. 1934; L Weisgerber, 1953, 1954). The relative autonomy of language VIS a VIS

culture and social structure is a necessary presupposition for the independent internal differentiation of language, Le" the hierarchy of meaning among semantic

8, In the literatura which usually re!ers lo language as an "institution", ~he COl1cept 01 institulion remains vague (eJ., hOW9ver. F. de Saussure. 1955: 33, also J. Stalin, 1955: 5ft).

20

I

fields and domains and theír systematíc retation to grammar and vocabulary and to their phonological foundation, Thís relative independence of language as well as the autonomous internal structure of language reinforce the detachment of "objective" from "subjective" aspects of meaning, Le" the segregation of a com­mon signífication from idiosyncratic meanings. With respect to individual con­sciousness language has a quasi-ideal status. In other words, linguistic meaning as "posítional values" in the sign-system remain largely independent of biographi­cal and situatíonal horizons of meaning which envelop semantic "usage" in con. crete subjective experiences. This quasi-ideal status contaíns those attributes which mal<e language a social fact in Durkheim's sense.9 It. then, it makes sense to adopt the semasiological aspect as a natural point of departure for a sociology of language. it should not be overlooked that the phonological structures. too, can become socially relevant, as, for example, in the concrete processes of speaking and lístening (~f. B.A. Valdman, 1959; W, Labov, 1963, 1966; W.O. Bright and A.K. Ramanujan. 1964). However, as will be shown later the basie social functions of language derive from its quasi-ideal status.

The speech-act (la paro/e) is a term on the analyticallevel of the major concepts of social psychology, Apart from the strict meaning (speech-acts as constitutive elements of communicative actions), it should be noted that institutionally defined roles, political roles, professional roles, etc., have characteristic linguistic reper­toires. Social positions, e.g., class and other status, are marked by distínct styles of language or other variations of línguistic codeso A person is institutionally and "positionally" (Le" by status) socialized in the course of his social biographyto one or severallinguistic repertoires and to one or several speech styles simultaneously or consecutively. The use of a particular linguistic repertory or a particular speech style (e.g" formal instead of intimate) in particular social situations is generally motivated by the social biography of the persono In addition, the specific use in specific situations is determined by the reciprocal defínitions of the situation of the participants, or may be imposed by institutional sanctions, Conversely, in social situations the linguistic typifications by the participants of each other and of them~ selves in relation to the others. as well as of the situation ¡tself, are of particular importance for the possibility and realization of congruent intersubjective definí­tions of the situation.

One hardly needs to stress the fact that different theoretical traditions will result in different social-psychological paradigms and research strategies. The linguistic and, more generally, communicative dimensions 01 social processes, were. heretofore, mainly the concern of symbolic interactionists and others influenced by George H. Mead. But at present the most promising line of thought and research that ls even closer to languag'e (and the concerns of linguists) can be found in works of those in the field of the ethnography of communícation and speaking (J.J, Gumperz and D. Hymes, 1964). '

The theoretical distinction between these analytical levels may be of greater importance to linguistics than to the sociology of language. Nevertheless, this distinction sets apart complementary aspects of social reality and of the social

9, E.H, Lenneberg (1960) dlscusses the relalion 01 different structural levels ot languaga to their biologlcal foundatioll, on Ine one hand, and lo culture on Ihe other.

21

~~~~_~'6~ ............ ____ .. == ______ .. ________________________ 6hl ________________________ " __ aM __ ~ __ ~~l'~ ____________ ~ ___ ""_r~~ I

reality of language and also has methodological consequences. The c.hoice óf research techniques tor the study of linguistic structure, culture, an? ~oclal struc­ture will be dictated by dífferent requirements than those that obtaln In th~ study of the dynamics of speech-acts in "natural" social situations or under expenmental

TIME-PERSPECTIVE

Level Synchronic of Analvsls Dlachronic

Global social structure "functional interdependence" of

Social culture and language in history social structure (and institutional. areas and social classas); cul-ture (and cultural configurations af ideas); 8nd language (and lio-

guisUc repertoires, styles.

codes)

Social cognitiva and lingulstlc develop- interrelationship of social roles,

Psychological ment in social biographies status, motivallonal (relevance) systems; cognitiva structures; 2nd repertolres, sMes. idiolects

conditions. This means, in sum, that the sociology of la~guage ~ust at the sa~e time incorporate the contributions and findings of Iin~uis~lcs (partlcularly sem~nt~cs and semasiology) and cültural anthropology (especlally Ils analyses 01 functlonlng social institutions and the structure of cultural configurations) ~s well a~ of the "ethnography of communicatíon", social psychology (wherever It shows Interest

in language) and experimental psychology o.f languag~,. .' In addition to the distincUon between analytlcallevels It 18 nece.ssary t~ dlfferentl­

ate between two time-related interpretive perspectives. In the dJachrom~ per~pec­tive the interrelationship of language, culture and society is examined .hlstoncall.y. In this perspective the connection between ~peech~acts (analyzed In ·t~rms of linguistic repertoires and speech styles) and Intemallzed. norms and actlon pa~. tems of a person in social situations is considered g~netlcall~. I~ th~ syn~hron!c

. t'lve the focus is shifted from the historical or blographlcal mterrelatlonshlp perspec • "f r I ' t of linguistic cultural and social-structural processes to the une I?na -In er-dependenc~" (or conflict) of these systems. T~e in~erse~tion of analytlcal ~evels and interpretive perspectives defines tour malor dlmenslons of ~e~earch In ~he sociology of language. (See table.) I shall use this typology as a~ ald lO presentlng a rather heterogeneous body 01 research in an orderly synoptlc ma~ner.

THE DIACHRONIC PERSPECTIVE ON. GLOBAL STRUCTURES: lANGUAGE AND SOCIETY IN HISTORV The level of global social structures is analytically still somewhat heterogeneous. For the sake of convenience and clarity it will be necessary to make a further distinction between research on the. most general relation of language to culture

22

and social structures, taken in an encompassing sense, and worl< on various subsystems such as institutions, dasses, ethnic, professíonal and other subcul­tures; (class-codes, institutional repertoires, dialects, etc.) In Ihe díachronic per­spective, the problem on the highest level of abstraction thus cfearly concems the phylogenetic interdependence of social organization, culture and language.

From time immemoríaJ man has pondered the differences between communica­tion among animals and human language. But only in recent decades did detalled studíes on the communication systems of non-human species permit a systematic clarificatíon of these differences (Ch. F. Hockett, 1959, 1963). As research findings on primates show persuasively one must assume, that there is a connection be­tween social organization and communication. There is no doubt that a rudimen­tary form of social organization and systematic communication must exist before culture evolves. An attempt to formulate specJfic hypotheses beyond statements of this kind, however. eludes the possíbílities of empírical verification. The archaeo­logieal material used in support of statements about the early stages of culture and social structure is scant and permits a variety of interpretations. lnferences made from forms of non-human social organization and communication can lead to erroneous conclusíons even when drawn with great circumspectíon. The same applies to inferences trom human ontogeny to phylogeny. And even if ethnology were able to offer taírly reliable reconstructions of "primitive" social structures and cultures, the reconstruetion of "primitive languages" is probably impossible (H. Hoijer, 1966). It is therefore unlikely that the reciprocal influence of language, culture and' social structure will ever be comprehended in anything but its most general outlines, and even then, only by way of controlled speculation, analogical inferences and theoretical plausibility.

It ls hardly less difficult to provide empírical evidence tor or against "theories" concerning a problem of almost equal abstraction. the alleged "concreteness" as opposed to abstractness 01 "primitive" linguistic and cultural systems. It ls fairly generally acknowledged that the dífferences between "primitivo" and non-archaic cultures go deeper than mere semantic differences in their respectivo vocabular­ies. They pertain to the general cognitive organization of culture (CI. Lévi-Strauss, 1962). It ls probaole that these differences oríginate in the social structure (E. Durkheim and M. Mauss, 1901/1902). On the other hand. it seems extremely doubtful {hat primitive classification systems and forms of thought can, as a whole, be regarded as "concretistic"; they are most certainly not "pre-Iogical" (eL L. Lévy-Bruhl. 1910. 1 ~35 and C. Lévi-Strauss, 1962). At any rate, the difficulty still remalns to linl< these observa1ions systematically to linguistíc structures (cf. T.~.L. Webster, 1952/53; G. Révész, 1946; A. Meillet. 1948: 242; H. Kronasser, 1952: 144ft.; H. Hoijer, 1966; E.H. Lenneberg, 1960). The hypothesis that an increasing abstraction in language is related to ongoing differentiations in the social structure appears plausible enough, if in need of specification and qualification. The con­commitant assumption of a global unilinear "evolution", however. can easily be refuted. It would be well to keep in mind that sorne areas in the social structure of "primitive" socleties are highly dífferentiated, that the level of abstraction in "primitive" dassiticatory schemes cannot be adequately measured according to standards of Western models of logic, and, further. that on certain levels of

23

speech-style in modern societies strong "concretistic" traíts can be detected as well (cf. B.J. Vendryes, 1925: 44ft.; 8. Bernstein, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1964).10

It is obvious that a theoretical grasp 01 the historical interrelationship between language, culture and social structure would be of the greatest ¡nterest not only to the sociology of language, but ~Iso to sociology in general. Unfortunately, various severe obstacles block the path of a suceessful analysis of social phenomena on this level of abstraction. One presuppositíon for systematic com­parative research would consist of congruent typologies of social structure. culture and language within the general frameworl~ of a theory of social change. However. at present there is no agreement on general typologies even within the several relevant disciplines. Neither sociologists nor anthropologists nor linguists sepa­rately and severally agree on the construction of global typologies on social strue­ture, culture and/or language, nor do they agree on how to translate global typolo­gíes into operational categoríes tor empírical research. Even more debatable is the. relevance of such typologies fer: theories of change. Furthermore, tYPologíes of social structures such as those by Emíle Durkheim and Ferdinand Toennies and

, 01 culture such as those by Robert Redfield and Alfred L. Kroeber, are díffícult to coordinate with either traditional or modern linguistic typologies (ct. H. Hoijer, 1954; J.H. Greenberg, 1954; Ch. F. Hocl<ett, 1954; N.A McQuown, 1954; Ar.L. Kroeber, 1960; N.H. Hoenigswald, 1963). This beíng the case. a more promising approach toward an analysís of the interrelationship between linguistic change, cultural hístory and social change might be found, tor the present at least, on a lower level of abstraction. It ¡s, therefore, perhaps advisable to look for the causes of change in observable communicative processes. It is here that language, culture and social structure are continuously and concretely actualized at the same time . . ~' An outline of such an approach in the diachronic perspective is given by John J. Gumperz and Del! Hymes in their proposal for an "Ethnography of Communica­tlon" (ef. D. Hymes, 1964e; J.J. Gumperz, and D. Hymes, 1964; J.J. Gumpérz, 1966). I shall return to this later in its proper context.

Although no well-established theory of the historical relations between lan­guage, culture and social structure exists. linguistic seience could not avoid turning to i'outside" factors in order to explain structural changes in language. Whenever the changes could not be attributed to "inner mechanisrns',' of language (phono­logical "adaptations" and the like), they were usually imputed to historie cultural and social determinants ot the "psychology" (the mind, the soul or similar underly­ing " structuresU

) of a linguistic community. Attention was mainly, and understand­ably, devoted to explanations of linguistic change. The dynamic processes of reciprocal influence between language. culture and social structure were seldom grasped with any precision. The vast literature on the subject ard the fact that this problem is so closely linl<ed to others do not allow a comprehensive presentation here. I shall nevertheless poiñt out those social factors whose ímportance for

" linguistic change have been explored, or, at least, suggested. . Th~ connecUon between the intrinsic properties of a particular language and Its

10. In this connection attention shouid be drawn lo the de-difterentialion of linguistlc perlormances in cases of aphasic disturban ces (K. Goldstein. 1948). Also, A. Schulz (1950), continuing in Ihe tradition of interpretations of aphasic dislurbances which leed fmm H. Head lo H. Jackson, speaks of a "concrete" and an, Uabstract" attitude which he corre lates with speech performances.

24

""1

j ;

¡

"~=i~ .. ,,;¡)a~~~hb-· ~~J

distributio~, ~~rvival and decline is obviously rather accidental although it may become slgnlflcant under so me circumstances (cf. S.M. Swadesh, 1948; M. Co­hen. 195?, Part '~). The external history of a language is the hístory of a linguistic communlty. In thls context attention should be drawn to the tact that the causes tor the development of speciaJ Janguages, pidgins and creoles, are structuraL Very often they are economic ar political, administrative and even military (cf. R. Lasch. 1907; A. van Gennep. 1908; O. Jespersen. 1922. Chapt. XII; D. Westermann, 1939; M.R. H~as, 1951; W.J. Samarin, 1955; AL. Epstein, 1959; C. Voegelin and F.M. Voegelln, 1964; D. Hymes, 1968).

Se':1antic changes more often than any other linguistic processes have been explamed by reference to cultural and social-historieal conditions (cf. H. Paul. 1920; o. Jespersen, 1922; J. Vendryes, 1925; G. Stern, 1931; A. Meillet, 1906; St. UlJmann. 1951. 1962; H. Kronassef. 1952). In addition to general observations and hypotheses on !he influenc~ of cultural and socio-historical conditions on linguistic change (especlally semantlc change) a great number 01 special studies have a?cumulated in the various sub-disciplines of linguistics, philology and cultural hlstory. ~any ot. the~e stud~es are devoled to the history af individual languages ar to part!cular hlstoncal penods 01 these languages. Phonological, morphological, grammatlcal and, above all, semantic changes, are brought in relation to the cultural and social history of the respective language communities (cf. B.O. Jes­perse~, 1905; K. Vossler, 1929; J. Trier, 1931; A.F. Jones, 1953; A UndqVist, 1955; H. ~ahnsky, 1957; K. Huber, 1960). In addition to these more or less systematic studles, more specialized investigatíons of the change of restricted semantic fields and semantic dornajns also cont~in instructive suggestions on the socio-cultural basis of linguistic change (cf. M. Szadrowsky. 1938; L. Spitzer, 1941; T.B.L. Web-5tef, 1952153; AF. Wright, 1953; B. Snell. 1955; L. Weisgerber, 1958; M. Leu-mann, 1959; St. Ullmann, 1964). '

The point that children intluence some forms ot linguistic change can be repeat­ed!y found in the literature (B.O. Jespersen, 1922, Part 11) .. Uttle attention has been pald, however, to the different provísions af an instítutional or informal kind that d~termine t~e .way a language or. rather, línguistic repertoires are acquired in dlfferent socletles. Such difterences may significantly influence the stability 01 a language an~ co~ver"sely. the pace and perhaps even the direction of linguistic cha~ge .. Too ¡,We IS stlll known aboutthe linguístíc consequences of different types of kmshlp systems and the respective pattems of sociaJization (ct., however, G.C. !i0~a~s, a~d D.M. Schneider. 1956). In addition to kinship systems. more or less mst~tut~onahzed age groups may also play an influential role (Ch. F. Hackett, 1950). Instltutlons of formal education at which the written code of a language is taught, wh~r~ver presen:. are not equally accessible to all members of society. This is an addltlona~ factor mffuencíng the stabilíty and direction of linguístic change.

The wntten code in its own right is an important link in the historical relationship bet~een language, culture and social structure. In the classical civilizations of the Anclent world the evolution of written codes from magic as well as economically and politically "rational" sources (S.H. Hooke, 1954) was closely related to the development of centralized forms of government. Administered by a specialized gr~u'p of priests, written codes have frequently supported the archaization of a rehglous language. Under different structural conditions, they may contribute to the

25

leveling of dialects and the standardízation of "written languages". They may also lead to sharper differentiations between literary and other "high" languages and vernaculars, each endowed with dífferent degrees of prestige (cf. J. Vendryes, 1925, PartV; AF. Sjoberg, 1964, 1966; also L. Bloomfield, 1927; P. Garvin, 1954). There are dífterent ways in whích written and spoken language ean interact histori­cally. In China an ideographic system could contribute to the maíntenance of the cultural unity of the social elite, the literati, despite differences in the spol<en language (M. Granet, 1934; M. Weber, 1920: 395ft.). Orthography can also have repercussions on the phonological structure of a language. It has been shown, tor example, that the striving tor "correet" pronounciation, based on the introduetion of somewhat arbitrary rules of spelling, .allowed the upwardly mobile Slovenian middle class to exercise a certain influence on phonological developments in standard "high" Slovenian (B. VOdusek, 1959).

It is extraordinarily difflcult to grasp systematically the manifold ways in which language, culture, and social structure influenced each other historically (E. Sapir, 1921, Ch. 9; J. Vendryes, 1925, Part 4, Ch. IV; M. Cohen, 1956a, Part IV). The consequences of functionally and temporally limited contracts can often be estab­lished wíthout much difficulty. The study of the diffusion of clearly segregated cultural elements and oi theír integration in the receiving culture presents no insurmountable methodological problems. As a concrete example one could men· tion the evolution of pidgins with slight repercussions, if any, on the languages invo[ved and correspondíngly limited changes in the economic institutions (J. Reinicke, 1938). More often it turns out that the assumption of merely "external" contact and surface influence is a fictíon of dubious heuristic value.

In cases of far-reaching processes o.f superimposition (encroachment and ad· justment of linguistic elements, cultural lraits and institutional components) it is no easy task to unravel the various strands of influence and establish clear causal relationships without gross oversimplification. To appreciate the point one ne'ed but to imagine a situation of over-aU social change involving different díalects and languages sorne of which aTe related (saYI two Bant!-1languages) and others thaf are totally unrelated (a Bantu languag~ and French); widespread areas of culture from religious beliefs to the art of cooking; and, finally, a 'range of ínstitutional spheres from government administration and the economy to kinship. This is a situation which characterizes much of Black Africa today as well as it characterized wide areas of the Roman Empire two millennia ago. History oHers countless examples that changes in culture, language and social structure merge dynami­cally in different combinations, alternately dominating and permeating each other. Early Roman history, with its changing social bases of cultural influence and dominance, its waves of expansion añd settlement, its sequences of uneven polítical and military development and linguistic influence, is a case in point. One only need to think of the Italic dialects and tribes, the IIlyric neighbors. the Etrus­cans, Magna Graecia, etc. to obtain an idea of the complexity of such processes (F. Altheim. 1934: 11 Off.) Or consider the different political, cultural and economic conditions that played a role in the spread of Islam, and Arabic, from the Maghreb to India and China, from Tatary to the Sudan, from the 7th to the 20th century. English history offers another good example of overlapping migrations and con- . quests and the interpenetration 01 diverse cultural and linguistic influences. The

26

social. and cultural history of these iníluenees has been almost as tboroughly examlned as their narrowly linguistic history (O. Jespersen, 1905). Another examc pie of complex cultural and linguistic contact which has been well investigated is that of Switzerland (8.1<. Mayer, 1951). Uriel Weinreíeh made a careful ease-study of the reciprocal influence between linguistic (interference, bilingualism) and cul­tural factors ("Iinguistic loyalty") in the Rhaeto-Romanic area and used these and other data for documentation of his general theory 01 linguístic contact (1953).

In additon to detailed surveys of the "geography" dialects, some of which are rather simple trait-distribution studies, there are also highly iIIuminating studies of a wider cultural and socio-historical scope. Among them are investigations of the reciprocal ínfluence of dialects, professional language, religious languages (the Hlanguages" of mysticism), slang, etc., and, on the other hand, the already existing or evolving literary or standard nationallanguages (from the vast literature on this subject, c1. H.L. Mencken, 1936; E. Partridge, 1950; M. Weinreich, .1953; A. Lind­qvist, 195~: M.M. Guxman, 1960; E. l<ranzmayer, 1962; H. Brinkmann, 1962). Evidently we are dealing here with a problem that is even less self-contained than most others in the sociology of language. The relationship between literary stan­dard language and slang and protessional languages is not entirely dissimilar to the situatíon that characterizes a minority language community, whose members have reached different stages of enculturation into the majority language and culture. The similarities appear most clearly in the differential distribution of pres­tige, the institutionally pre-defined structure of language-use and certain social­psychological implications, such as subjective identification (cf. C.M. Rosenquist, 1932; D. Lee, 1943; J.B. Johnson. 1943; E. Spicer, 1943; F. Gross, i 951; E. Haugen, 1953; EP. Dozier, 1956; J. Gulick, 1958; E. Fausel, 1959; G.N. O' Grady, 1960; J.J. Bodine, 196.8). . In the. United States, the classical case in point, a remarkable and broadly Informatlve survey was made of the effects of "linguistic consciousness" and "linguistic loyalty" on different institutionally and culturally determined "domains" (cf. J.A Fishman et aL, 1966; J.A. Fishman, 1964, 1965a and b). The multi­dimensionality of the conditions such as the economic and pOlitical framework wi.thin which different ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups and sub-groups (e.g., mlgrant laborers) come into contact with each other, and the multitud e of conse­quences of such contacts, the evolution of a lingua franca, linguistic ínterferenee on various levels of language, partíal cultural assimilation, borrowing, etc. were also shown in severa I studies on Afriea (cf. C.M.N. White, 1951; W.J. Samarin, 1955, 1966; AL. Epsteín, 1959; 1. Richardson, 1964).

These problems overlap in part with the theoretíeal and practical questions raísed in connection with standardization ot languages, the development-and recently also the attempted "planing"-of national languages. A variety of influ­enees is involved in these processes: ecological, demographic and economic factors (e.g" commerce, urbanization, industrialization}, political factors (conquest, colonial policy, centralized administration, the language of adminístratíon) and religious factors (e.g., church language, Bible translation) as wel! as the presence or absence of writing, a traditional body of literature, educatíonal ínstitutions, etc. (d. K. Vossler, 1929; J. Vendryes, 1925, Part IV, Chapo 3; O. Jespersen, 1946, Chapo 3 and 4; W. Porzig, 1950, Chapo V; A Dauzat! 1953; M. eohen, 1956, Part

27

IV, Chap. 3; A. Sommerfelt, 1962: 52-58; E. Haugen, 1966). Al! of these factors can combine and recombine in innumerable ways, either jointly supporting a cer­tain path of over-all change or cancelling each other out.

We now come to a point of great importance to the sociology of language. Apart from the intrinsic semantic and syntactic properties of a language, the highly variable degrees of linguistic consciousness' and of attitudes on language have tar-reaching historieal consequenees. Strong opinions on language that come to be held by different social groups and classes may, for example, exert an influence on the "internal" development ot a language (R.F. Jones, 1953). This fact was generally overlool<ed by the science of linguistics, especially by the strueturalist schools, although there were notable exeeptions (ef. H.M. Hoeningwald, 1966; L. Nader, 1962). The influence of "línguistic consciousness" and of attítudes toward language is of coursa even more important and certainly more direct in the realm 01 ideology and potities. Language and "Iinguistic consciousness" have been recognized as signifícant faetors in the rise 01 nationalism (cf. R. Jakobson, 1945; H. Kohn, 1955; K. Vossler, 1932). But only reeently have systematic analyses of this problem area been undertal<en both trom a historical perspective (H.L. Koppel­mann, 1956), and within the framework of a sociological theory of communication (I<.W. Deutsch, 1953). The obvious underlying reasons for the growing ¡nterest in this topic (J. de Francis, 1950; H.G. Lunt, 1959; R.E. Ruiz, 1958; Ch. A. Ferguson, 1962; R.B. Le Page, 1964) are the problems that arise tor the newly emerging states from their ¡ntricate and predominantly centrífugal línguisfíc and cultural' situation. Nevertheless, with a few exceptions (R. Sereno, 1949) detailed system­atíc ínvestigations of the functions of language in the shaping of political con­sciousness and ideologies are still missing.

It is evident that, next to the intrinsic properties of línguistic structures (in the sense of a línguistique interne), a considerable number of socio-cultural variables in different combinations co-determines the use and functions of language. Amo.ng them is the degree of prevalence within the Iinguistic community of mono-, bi- and multilingualism. Another c10sely linked but not identical variable IS (he social distri­bution of diglossia (the ability to speak both the standard language and a dialect or dialects) within a society. These variables are correlated directly and indirectly with social (e.g., economic and polítical) and cultural (especially religious and ideological) factors influencing the use of language and linguistíc functions (el. above all H. 1<los5, 1952,1966; Ch. A Ferguson, 1959; J.A. Físhman, 1965b). Apart from first models of classification of linguistic communíties (H. 1<I08S, 1966), future research will have to devole more serious attention to the development of diachronic models (eL H. 1<1058, 1952; Y. Mall<iel. 1964).

80th global constructs and individual philologically oriented case studies in cultural history have serious disadvantages in the effort to advance the theoretical understanding of the connection between linguístic, cultural and social change. The principal problem with global constructs is that typologies which could be used to compare and relate·the three areas of change have yet to be developed. ~he findings of specialized phylological investigations, on the other hand, are very ditiicult to tjt into a general theoretical framework. In both instances conclusions depend on methods of debatable adequacy. Inferences about antecedent pro­cesses are drawn from the final results, not from índependent observations of

28

I I

t

those processes. Furthermore, most studies of this kind have adopted a concept of linguistic structure which corresponds to the notíon of system in the /inguistique interne. The semiotic or the pragmatic dimension (to use Ferdinand de Saussure's and Charles W. Morris' terminology respectively) 18 8creened out on the level of data collection to an extent which makas it difficult to reintroduce it evenlually in the fheoretical interpretation of the dynamics of changa. Finally. lhe view of society in most of these studies tends to see it unrealistícally as being neatly compartmen­talized by sex, caste, profession, etc. 11 Despite these shortcomings, from which some but not all studies in this area suffer, there can be no doubt of the sociologi­cal relevance of the sociology of language findings. Nevertheless, it is satisfying to discern here, too, the beginnings of a new approach of ímmedíate relevance to the sociology of language. New is of course a relative term in the area of the theory of linguistic change in its relation to cultural and social change as it is elsewhere. But although Antoine Meillet anticipated much in his famous article on semantic change that is now being taken up again, the new approach that has emerged offers fresh insights into the problem and opens up new avenUeS for future re­search. I am referring here in particular to the diachronic implications of the "Eth­nology of Communication" approach which so tar have not been sufficiently sys­tematized. The program, addressed to "the empirical field study of systems of signs in systems of use" (D. Hymes, 1964b: 9), directs the search for concrete causes of changa toward speech-acts. These, in turn, are seen as part of a culturally meaningful and institutionally predefined communicalive situation.

The interdependence between linguistic repertoíres that ara determined by the social piography of the speaker, the institutionalized contexts of communicative interaction and the concrete situations of speaking and listening that are pre­defined by cultural rules of meaningful use of language follows a complex pattern. John J. Gumperz (1966), an exemplary study. is a precise ínvestigalion 01 particular instances of this pattern. It concerned the assimilatíon of dialects to the standard language and presented a theoretical analysis of the cumulative affect of changes in communicative processes which eventually might allow cautíous prediction ot rate and direction of linguistic change. An earlier study by A. L. Epstein (1959) analyzed linguistic developments in conjunction with social and cultural determi­nants oi speech situations. His attempt to relate linguistic change to social stratifi­cation systems is of particular interest.

This is not an entirely new idea. It was again Antoine Meillet (1948: 2431.) who anticipated much that is theoretically relevant in this connection. The idea that there is some relation between social stratification and linguistic change appears in the notion that "imitation" of prestigious speech "models" triggers processes' of language change and defines its dírection (O. Jespersen, 1922: 186; L. Bloom­tield, 1927: 439; also cf. M. Cohen, 1956b: 178f). Charles A. Ferguson (1959) approaches the problem by systematic observations on the phenomenon of dí­gl08sia. John L. Fischer (1958) takes up the theory of imitation and maintains tllat línguistic changes take place in two continuously recurring phases: thé lower

11. " ... lhe majority of studies of linguistic changa, however. aperate with a simple hierarchícal modal of socíety, in which populalionsare seen as segmented Inlo a series of discreta groups differentiated by mean s af such categorías as class, caste, occupalion, sex, etc." (J.J. Gumperz 1966: 28).

29

classes imitate the prestigious speech-style of the upper classes whereupon the upper classes gradually abandon it.12 Fischer bases his thesis on findiligs from a study he made in the United States. In víew of the size and the selectíon critería of his sample and the fact that he confines himself to phonological indices the generalizations must be treated with caution. Indubitably Fischer's hypothesis cannot be validly applied to radically different Ilnguistic and stratification systems. William Bright and AI<' Ramanujan (1964) (also d. W. Bright 1960a and 1960b) have found that some kinds of "cQnscíous" linguistic change, especially semantic change and introduction of loan-words, among languages in India that are c~arac­terized by caste dialects evolved mainly in the higher caste dialects. "Unco.n­scious" forms of linguistic change on the phonological and morphological levels were however equally distributed among higher and lower caste dialects, unless the existence of a formal literary style retarded this particular kind of línguistic change. Furthermore, the concept "imitation" is far too vague to describe ade­quately the socio-psychological process in question here. This ís clearly demon­strated by the interesting research by William Labov (1963,1966). Labov tried to do justíce to the intricate social and social-psychological dynamics 01 thís "mech­anism" by singlíng out its main component and examining it as a process of "hypercorrection". The process Is to be found in particular among the lower míddle classes. The ínvestigations of Raven J. McDavid Jr. (1948), John L. Fischer (1958) and Willíam Labov (1963, 1966) definitely show that phonological changes can be explained only by the use of class variables, at least in the case 01 modern class societies such as the Uníted States. With the exception of the study by Willima Bright and A K. Ramanujan (1964), precise and systematic material on the role of these variables in processes of linguístic change in other societies and on different structural levels of language has yet to be colfected.

THIE D~ACHRON~C PIERSPlECTIVE: lANGUAGE AND SOCIAL B~OGRAPHV On the social-psychological level of analysis in the diachronic perspective, the linguistic aspects of individual social biography constitute the foei of theoretical and research interest. Though closely related and almos! inseparable, two aspects may be distinguished here: 1,) The acquisition of language within the social struc­ture and through its mediation, 2.} the internalization of social reality by means of language. Both are essential for the social formation of eonseiousness and the social shaping of personality structure.

Let us resta te the problem more precisely. First, it is not language but a particular language whích is acquired by the child. In other words, the chiid learns a specific linguistic code as, for example, one that is class-based (8. Bernstein, 1966). The child might al50, at first, learn more or less elaborate varieties of "baby talk" (ef. J.B. Casagrande, 1948; Ch. A. Ferguson, 1964), and only later acquire a socially determined version of adult language. It must be also remembered that language

12. J.L Fischer slgnificantly refers tú it as "flight-pursuit mechanism". FUfther bibliographical references are found ln J.O. Herlzler (1950).

30

1

I , :

is acquired in a specifíc biologícally (E. Lenneberg, 1967) and Psychologically predetermined sequence corresponding to specific levels of linguistic structure (ef. R. Jakobson, 1941: also O. Jespersen, 1922, Vol. 11; H. Werner and E. Kaplan, 1952; R.W. Brown, 1958; M. Glanzer, 1962). Furthermore, language and linguistic repertoires are not transmitted by sodal 8tructure in the abstraet but by specific social structures with varied kinds of institutionalized I<inship systems (P. Schrecker, 1949), age groups (Ch. F. Hocl<ett, 1950), and specíalized educational systems. These structures may occur throughout the society or be restricted to certain social strata. They determine and direct the acquisítíon of language or, at least, provide the framework within which a language is acquired. In addition to acquiring a language, the child al80 leams the culturally or institu1ionally predefined norms of linguistic use such as the rules ot formal and informal speech and other stylistic variations, polite phrases, forms of address, proverbs, taboo words, etc.

Second, the internalization of social reality through language means: the subjec­Uve acquisition and grasp of taxonomíes and interpretative schemes, of socia! categoríes ot space, time and causality, of typical motivational relations and struc­tures of relevance, of behavioral recipes and value hierarchies, of what is taken for granted and what is considered to be problematic in a given society. Al! this is "filtered" and mediated by language, or more precisely, by semantic domains and syntactic structures. But again. one has to keep in mind that it is "filtered" through specifíc varieties of language, such as class-based codes, through differ­ent linguistic repertoires and through rules of language use (J.H.S. Bossard

Finally a language is eVidently not learned en bloc all at once, but in sequences. These are usually socially predetermined in a rather strict manner although they may be relatively accidental in certaín types of societies. In addítion, such sequences are als6'dependent on psychological presuppositíons and línguis­tic structure. Besides, social reality is not transmitted by language alone. Role playing, observatíon anCl "imitation" of non-verbal "models" of behavíor, sanc­Hons, etc. are not linl<ed to language in exactly the same way and with equal cogency in aH societies. The particular pattern of these linl(s is re'lated to the general character of the culture and ¡ts socio-structural foundation.

It is equally difficu!t to analyze systematlcally the complex relationship between language, culture and social structure and the dynamics of this relationship in the time-perspective of a social biography. George H. Mead drew the attention of social psychology and sociology to the significance of role playing and communi­cation tor the development of consciausness and for a child's orientation in the social world. Since then the axiom that language holds a central function in sociali­zaban processes has beco me the consensus omnium in social science text­books. 13 The works ot Jean Piag€t (1926, 1954) and L.S. Vygotsl<y (1934, 1939) show the close interrelation that exists between language. and 1he development of thought and the leaming of logical categoríes, despite the controversy between them on the exact nature of this relation. Our Imowledge on some aspects of the problem has been greatly advanced by a series of studies ranging ín focus from

13. A sucdncl introduction· to these queslions is oHered by J. Bram (1955, Ch. 3). An extensiva bibliography on role Iheory, In part wilh a genetic and sodal-psychological orientalioo, is proferred by T.A. Sarbin (1954) (et. furlher J.H.S. Bossard, 1943, 1945a, A. Slrauss, 1959, Ch .. 1, and 00 socialization P. Schrecl¡er 1949).

31

ehild language (Clara and William Stern, 1907; also ef. O. Jespersen, 1922, Book 11) and languages of specific childhood subcultures (lona and Walter Opie, 1959; cf. also J.B. Casagrande, 1948; Ch. A. Ferguson, 1964), to reports on experiments in child psychology and psyeholinguistics (eL H. Werner and E. Kaplan, 1952; R.W. Brown, 1958; M. Glanzer, 1962; O.A. Entwisle, 1966; in conneetion with Entwisle's work also cf. J. Oeese, 1965). Informatíon on the social presuppositions for the learning of linguistic, cognitive and behavioral styles IS much scarcer. Too little is known about the eonsequences of such socially determinad subjective "styles" for the evolution of self-images and personality structures. Studies on the early stages of bilingualism throw some light on these problems (eL A.A. Oíebold, 1961, 1966; also M. Pavlolovitch, 1920; J.H.S. Bossard. 1945b; E Lamberi, 1956). The studies of M.M. Lewis (1936, 1963) which were heavíly influeneed by Ourl,heim and Halb­wachs should also be mentioned in this connection. The work ot Basil Bernsteín (1959, 1961 a, 1961 b, 1964) and the research inspired by his theories (U. Oever­mann, 1966) deal with a problem of considerable sociological and political signifi­canee. Bernstein argues that socially determined ways of life and forms of com­munication lead to the evolutíon of different speech styles-Bemstein calls them "codes"-and that the most important social determinant ls class. He claims that two different codes exist in England, an "elaborated" and a "restricted" code wilhin a línguistic community. These codes functíon as differentiating "fiiters" through which the child perceives reality. They also determine his later social behavior. If due to general structural configurations a given class uses a specific speech style (according to Bernstein the working classes have access only to a "restricted" code) this will have foreseeable consequences on the self-image, behavior patterns, educational success, mobility chances, etc. for children born

into this class.

THE SYNCHRON~C PERSPECTIVE: INTERRELATION OF GLOBAL STRUCTURES The question 01 the ínterdependence of language, culture and social st'ructure also arises on analytic levels in the synchronic perspective. On the level of analysis of global social structures. attention shifts to the interdependence of linguistic, cul­tural and social-structural functions in a specific society at a given period of time. Analysis in the synchronic perspective need not become trozen, sta tic analysis. It is still concemed. after all, with social processes. A sharp. distinction between diachronic and synchronic analysis IS therefore hardly possible. Neveftheless, different schemes of interpretation are applied which lead to difterent definítions of the problem and difterent kinds of theoretical djfficulties. Whereas worl< in the diachronic perspective easily falls into the trap of specialized case-studies. i.e., non-comparability, work in the diachronic perspective has lo tear the danger of lip~service functionalism that starts and ends with the profound assertion that language, culture and social structure are functionally interdependent, Le.

tautology and triviality. It is perhaps indicative that in the "Sapir-Whorf controversy" the limitations of

32

. ;

such functionalíst generalities were overcome only with difficulty. In consequence. the theoretical questions linked to linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism acquired an associatíon of vagueness and triviality. Oespite all this, ít is difficult to see how the problem of the interdependence of language, culture and social structure can be approached without a comparative method that involves global structures. This again raises the question of adequacy, congruence and possibili­ties of operationalization. Another difficulty arises from the lact that global com­parísons of this sort frequently remain suspended in the time!ess dímension of a quasi-synchrony. This problem iS.minimized in comparisons of "primitive" sodelies outside the mainstream of universal history. Hence, most of the studies mentíoned in the preceding discussion of linguistic relativism and determinism are not severely aHected by this predicament.lt is noteworthy, however, that most of these studies confine themselves to an ínvestigation of linguistic and cultural interrela­tionships and disregard social-structural variables. A well-Imown exception is the work of Alf Sommerfelt (1938) and, more recently, that cif John L. Fischer (1966). Físcher made the sociologically fascinating attempt to trace specific syntactic differences of two languages to the role dífferentiations of their respective soci~ eties, Truk and Ponape.

Global comparisons are lheoretically and methodo!ogically much more intricate and dubious when applied to complex "historical" societies. The many questions associated with such comparisons are of considerable theoretical importance. They include: Are the strucfural similarities of all modern industrial societies re­flected in the linguistic domains and semantic fíelds related to these structures (H. Marcuse, 1961)1 Ooes "privatization" of the individual-a process closely lín"ed to the rationalization and specializatíon of the great public institutions in modern society, especially the' economy, the occupational structure and political bureau­cracies-Iead to linguístic changes which are functionally dependent on this pro­ces s? Does it lead, for example, to an extraordinary semantlc differentiatíon of emotions, of sexuality, etc., and to the instrumentalization of institutionally deter­mined línguistíc repertoires of most public social roles? Given the same structural conditions, are such effects applicable to quite different types of languages? The methodological difficulties that contront anyone seeking to find answers to these questions without r8sort to sheer phantasy 8till seem insurmountable today (M. Cohen, 1956b; A. Sommerfelt, 1966). Nevertheless, there ís hope that eventually typologies will be developed which will permlt eomparisons of global linguistic and cultural systems (cf. R.P. Gastil, 1959; D. Hymes, 1961 b).

For comparative research on this level, jt will first be necessary to accumulate . a sufficient number of meticulously executed studies on the variety of ways in which language can be socially embedded in different societies. Some illumínating studies on this " middle-range" sociology of language are already available. Yet on this level, too, many important questions are still barely touched, others have been investigated with inadequate methodological means. On thís level the necessary complementaríty oí the synchronic and diachronic perspective becomes espe~ cially clear. The functíonalínterrelationship of institutions, roles, social classes with linguistic styles and repertoíres emerges as a palpable social phenomenon in the form of concrete matrices of social action and communication. In the course of

33

generations these produce slructura/ changes which can be clearly discerned on both the institutional and línguistie sides. 14 But even where a reliable allocation of historieal causes of present functions is not possible, "middle-range" studies in the synchronic perspective offer increasingly more differentiated and convir)cing evi­dence of the social distribution of language. This applies to the stylistic, syntactic and lexical, as well as the morphological and phonological level. At the same time, these studies are beginning to provide information on the elementary requirements tor what, for lack of a better term, may be called the social organization of com­munícation. What this means will become clearer after a brief but systematic discussion of the most interestíng studíes that are relevant to the synchronic perspective on the "middle-range" of the sociology of language.

Ec%gíca/ Determinants of Communication Ecology is a basic factor in the evolution and maintenance of communication barriers and in the "demography" (or density) of communications. Different models of quantification are available for these variables (K-W. Deutsch, 1953). Communication barriers and communica­tion density, in turn, provide the sub-stratum of conditions for the institutional determination and specifícation of concrete social matrices of communication. The importance of ecological factors for dialect studies is obvíous. Although significant contributions to the sociology of language were made by dialectologists (B.M. Hain, 1951; W.A. Grootaers, 1959), systematic work and coherent theory on the ecological foundations of díalects is not yet available. Without belíttling their infor­mative value, the same can be said of those linguistic investígations which go beyond the boundaríes of traditional dialectology and deal with linguistic differen­tiations in relation to mObility, urbanization, age groups, different paUerns of settlement. etc.

Institutional Determinants 01 Communicati9n The communicatíve networks of social instítutions and of entire institutional dornains are evídently determined, among other factors, by the functional requirements of the institution. The system of functionally oriented complementary social roles establishes the direction and the "feed-back" requirements of communication. It al so defines the pattern and permissible ranges of communication frequencies. The cornmunicative network ot an institution and the rules of linguistic use pertaining to it provide the framework aod the pragmatic "motives" for the emergence of specific institutional "Ian­guages". The development of such a "Ianguage" ¡s, however, not exclusively determined by "rational" requirements of information and feed-back within the communicative network of an institution. !t is also fostered by what may at first appear as secondary aspects or functions of the use of language in communicative matrices: growth of solidarity of the "insiders" vs. "outsiders"; maintenance 01 the self-image of the actors and legitimatization of the role-performances, etc.

"Institutionallanguage" is not a precisely defined technical term in the sociology of language. 11 will therefore be necessary to discuss briefly what is meant by this

14. Compare the slatement by P. Friedrich 1964: 132: lo,. significant interrelationships. while neither perfect nor total, aré widely present and highly systemalic between lhe semantic structure underlying any fairly compls)$ terminological field and the associated social structure underlying Ihe behavioral field in any culture thal has evolved wilh reasonable stabHity over two or more centurias." .

34

term. In the mínimal case, which can be postulated as the basic case for any inslitutionaJ complex, Ihe use of .the vernacular within the instrtutional area follows a pattern that is determined by the functional requirements of that area. These requirements will lead, at the very minimum, to a differential frequency in the use of institutionally relevant words and to the establishment or a specífic word-ethos, Le., a halo of valuations and sentiments attached to the words. It is more likely, though, that the solving of specífic operational problems of an institution will, in addition, toster a differentiation of semantic domajns and fields beyond the differ·

. ence characterizing the corresponding domains and fields in the vernacular. The instítutional speech style thus aequires its "own" lexical and perhaps even syntac­tic structure. Though ditficult tor the linguist to pinpoint, it also develops a kínd of "shorthand" of abbreviations, cryptotypes and ellipses. Many things no longer need to be articulated in full, others can be taken tor granted without saving. This of course characterizes mainly stable communication patterns between comple­mentary roles in social institutions. In the maximal case a language may thus emerge which displays not only some isolated semantic peeuliaritíes and its own rules of interpretation for certain institutionally relevant ¡t8ms, but also its "own" semantic, morphologieal and even phonological structures. Between the minimal and the maximal case, there are transitional stages. In concrete instances it may not be easy to decide whether it is a case 01 institutional ideolect, diglossia or bilingualism. It would be premature to offer a systematic theory on the extent, the direction and the form of instHutionally determined linguistic differentiat¡on. Some important factors can, however, be established at present: the ecological basis of institutional communication matrices; the relative of specialization of insti­tutional spheres in different types of societies and, in this connection, the quality and duration of tralning (institutional socialization) of role-performers as well as the extent to which the laHer are segregated in separate social strata and groups. (Compare, for example, the medieval communities of ascetic monl<s with the orthodox príests in Russian villages or a protessional army with a people's milítía.) Different societíes determine what typieal role-sets are typically permissible, avail­able, etc. (Is it or is it not possible tor a person to combine the roles of father, grandfather, son; or land owner, abbot, Imight, merchant?).

As soon as institutional spheres reach a certain degree of specialization a significant range of institutional functions can be performed only by "experts". Their specialized knowledge is expressed in specialized languages which acquire an almost autonomous character. Depending on circumstances, these autono­mous "Ianguages" or speech-styles may, in turno ínfluence the standard language. Some such circumstances were already mentioned. The influence of more or less autonomous institutional "Ianguages" on the standard language from which it developed also depends on {he general social relevance which the knowledge objectivated in these "Ianguages" possesses. It is noteworthy that specialized "Ianguages", as communicative aspects of specialized forms of Imowledge, can beco me relatively independent of their former base·institutions, of the standard language and even of their particular society as a whole. They may develop a quasi-ideal status, as ¡s, for instance, the case with sorne "religious languages". "legal languages", "scientific languages", and the like.

An institutional "Ianguage" or an institutionaHy determined style of language is

35

::'\~~~C;:'~:Jll' 1iIlIU1I3II.Ii __ IIIIiIIII!!I __ lBIIIIIlIIIilIIIiIIilIIIIIII������������lllliimi��i�����ÍIIIIIIIIIII __ IIIiIIIIIIIII ___ Illlliil! _________ ....... """"' ............ _ .... ______ ....... ______ ........... _______ -----.....,.~~~------------

eharaeterized internally by the artieulation of línguistic role repertories (ef. C.W. Milis, 1940; J.J. Gumperz, 1926b). With some modification, the general remarks made on differentiation of instítutional speeeh styles can al so be applied to the linguistie differentiation of role repertoríes. An obvious Iimitation here is the faet that it is unlikely that the linguistie differentiation of role repertoríes and shared semantic interpretations between eomplementary roles is generally as important tor institutional funetions as communication between performers of identical roles. This aets as a brake against semantic specialization among sub-sets of ínstitu­tional roles although it does not fully prevent j1. It is a very different matter with status groups, as can be seen from the emergence of class-specifie speech-styles. What is important tor institutional role repertoríes is the evolvement of regulations for línguistic transmission of information, liñguistic directives and recipes for action. rules of línguistic etiquette, includíng forms of address and expressions of respect, etc., which are applicable to complementary roles and sub-sets of roles within the entire institution.

It is therefore permissíble to speak of general institutional styles of language and ot specific role repertories, if not of institutional "Ianguages". There are no basic theoretical, methodological or practical obstacles to descriptive analyses of institu­tional "Ianguages", styles and repertories in a specific society. A wide range of investigations waits for future generations of sociologists 01 language. A difficult problem ari~es, however, in the case of comparative analyses. The clusters of institutional functions that are ioined in a given instítuliopal area, the differentiation of performance s which constitutes the basis of institutional role-systems and the degree of specialization Qf institutional domains vary trom one society to the next -not to mention the varied ecological bases of communícative matrices and the variations in social dístribution of knowledge.

One aspect of the problem is that at present most of the work produced in this field is that of ethnologists. With few exceptions they have dealt with societies where the social structure is articulated predominantly in the system of kinship, whereas economic, political and religious instítutions show a low degree of institu­tional difterentiation and specialization. Their respective functions are incorpo­rated into the system of kinship roles where they appear merely as role segments. Although it may be possible to distinguish between sacred and profane styles of languages, economically pertinent terminologíes and the like in such societies, one could hardly speak of quasi-autonomous ins!itutional "Ianguages". These remarks are to serve as an introduction lo the brief summary of work on institutional linguistic styles and repertories which follows. This summary is ordered by main institutional spheres.

A. It is not surprising that a vast amount of literature is available on the re/alíon­ship between kinship systems and language (A.M. Halpern. 1942; G.L Trager, 1943; F.G. Lounsbury, 1956; D.H. Hymes, 1964c provides a comprehensive biblí­ography on the topie, esp. pp. 225-227). Most ethnological studies are restricted to analyses of l<inship terminologies. Attempts to investigate símultaneously the semantic structures of the kinship sphere, the linguistic use and the role system ' are relatively new and rareo Equally rare are the attempts to deal with I<inship and languages in modern societíes. In this connection the older studies by James H.S. Bossard (1945b), George C. Homans and D.M. Schneider (1956) should be men-

.36

tioned,' as weU as two remarkable studies inspired by the theoretical notions of the "elhnography of communication". They are Paul Friedrich's (1964) highly interest­ing analysís of the semantic structure of the Russian kinship system and L Fis­cher's (1 964) investigalion of Iinguistic use and semanlic structure in the family Jife of the Japanese middle class, Indirectly Iinl<ed to problems of linguistic styles within the kinship system, are linguistic differentiations related to age groups and to sex roles. (cf. Ch. A. Ferguson, 1964; E. Sapir, 1929; P.H. Furfey, 1944; M.R. Haas, 1944; R. Flannery, 1946). As is the case with other institutíonal repertoríes, both age and sex roles may be associated with minor stylístic variations as well as approximations to special "Ianguages". It is interesting to note that such linguis­tic differentiations may occur not only in speech styles or repertoríes of the role performers, but in some instances as conventions of the use of language directed at the role performers. The restrictions on language use by women and on speech addressed to women are by no means confined to "primitiva" societies but con­tinue to exist in modern societies.

B. Studíes on differentiated linguístic styles and role repertories in [he politica! domain are much scarcer. The seo res of studies on polítical terminologíes made by hístorians of ideas are not of immedíate relevance for the sociology of language. Ethnologists, on the other hand, have not been concerned with sodetíes with specialized political institutions until quite recently. The sizeable Iiterature on lan­guage and natíonalism is also of little immediate interest at this analytic level. A study of at least partial relevance here is the one by Renzo Sereno (1949) men­tioned earlier. Among studies on linguístic dífferentíation in institutions that are part of, Of closely línked to the sphere of politics, mention should be made of the investigation of liriguistic style in warfare (M.E. Opler and H. Hoijer, 1940), among soldiers (F. Elkín, 1946) and also of studies dealing with linguistic usage in law (T.8.L. Webster, 1952/53: 18f.; H. Cairns, 1957).

C. Hardly any studíes exist on the links between religious linguisfic repertories and religious roles. It is of course true that fully specialized religious institutions are a historical rarity. The ethnological studies ot Leslie White (1944) and StanJey Newman (1955) only in part belong to this category. They both deal with sodetíes which have developed a ritual vocabulary and a "sacred" linguistic style without having an "autonomous" institutional structure. The use of a "sacred" vocabulary or speech-style is naturally embedded in institutionalized situations also in these societies. The abundant theological litera tu re, which consists in part of linguisti­cally oriented ínterpretations of "sacred" texts or descriptive analyses of "church languages" pro vides little more than "raw" material for the sociology 01 language. The excellent study of J. Barr (1961) on the semantics of bíblical language is relatively distinctíve. Barr's investigation g08S, beyond questions dealing with a "religious" style of language and is generally relevant tor an understanding of the relatíonship between language and culture. Two additional studies in thís area also should be mentioned: H.F. Muller's work (1945) in which he tries ta relate certain línguistic and social phenomena of the early Middle Ages to the development of the Christian concept of the person, and an investigation of a religious semantic field by K. Faiss (1967).

D. Among investigations of economícally relevan! or economícally determ;ned linguistic differenfiation there are the analyses of linguis~ic forms of property

37

designations (ef. L. Lévy-8ruhl, 1916; A. Capell, 1949). Ward H. Goodenough's (1951) attempt to describe the relationship between trucl<ese economic types of action and linguistic forms of property designations merits particular aUention. T.F. Mitchell (1957) offers an analysis of the use of language in economic transactions which is especially noteworthy beeause it deals with a society (Cyrenaíca) with a relatively high specialization structure 01 economic roles. The influence ot lan­guage on professional mobility in a society which is characterized by linguístic pluralism and in which the languages are assigned different prestige values was investigated in Canada by E. Jacques 8razeau (1958). A problem to be mentioned here in passing is the relatíon between the economie basis, technology, the numero ical system, the various measuring units and time dimensjons, and theír artieulation in spol<en and written language (d. F.G. SI<inner, 1954; E.R. Leach, 1954: also cf. W.C. Neale, 1963).

Much work sUII needs to be done on the relationshíp between occupational structures, economíc role systems and linguistic repertories or styles ("jargons"). Very little is known about these relationships al present. There is, however, one exception: one aspect 01 this problem has been ínvestígated in studies dealing wíth argotsin which the common "occupational" experience was seriously ínvestigated as the basis of argot-like linguistic developments. Questions dealing with argots were traditionally assigned to a difterent problem area because the essential trait of argots was considerecj.to be their "secret" character. Mareel Cohen (1919) was one of the first to put questions concerníng argots in the proper perspective. Beginning with Arnold van Gennep's (1918) general observatíons on special lan­guages, with the research on the linguistic and social aspects of the development of argots (ct. A. Dauzat, 1929; S. von Wartburg, 1930; L. Spitzer, 1931, Vol. 11: 268-283) and with detailed studies of specific argots (M. Cohen, 1908) and of the relation between argots and slang (E. Partridge, 1933; H.L Mencl<en, 1936: 555-589), important theoretieal insights have been gained as wel~ as a large amount 01 data colleeted. In several detailed studies David W. Maurer succeedéd admira­bly in showing the combination oí factors which in different circumstances led to the emergence of an argot. The factors he lists are: 1) high eommunication density within relatively small groups with a clear-cut role and status system~ 2} specific patterns of recruitment with a training program that is more or less institutionalízed; 3) sOlidarity against outsiders; and, last but not least, 4). óccupationally determined "functional" needs to transpose the relevant domajn of experience and action into a finely meshed linguistic nei. This explains why in the United Statesf for example, there exists an argot 01 pocket thieves (D.W. Maurer, 1955) and professional gamblers (D.W. Maurer, 1950; also cf. D.W. Maurer, 1951), of the "heavy racl<ets" and several varieties of smugglers' argots (H. Braddy, 1956), yet no distinct lan­guage of prostitutes (D.W. Maurer, 1939; cL also, the more recent worl< of T.1. Rubín, 1961). Argot-like linguistic styles adopted by sub-cultures without an economieally specialized·institutional basis are in many.ways different from "true" argots, despite some genetical affiníties and functional analogíes. This beco mes apparent in the typical instability of such linguistic styles, as witnessed by the "Ianguages" of the jazz world (R.S. Gold, 1957) and the world of drug addicts (H. Braddy, 1955) that partially overlap. The linguistic style ot youth sub-cultures must be considered as a special case. Where youth culture exists on the borderlines of

38

professional crime (eL L.S. Selling and S.P. Stein. 1934; P. Lerman. 1967) the situation is even more complicated in ¡ts details, as youth "Ianguages" borrow from criminal argots, jazz language, ur:ban Negro slang, while fulfilling functions which go beyond those of professional argots and jargons.

Linguistic siyles or codes evolving in social classes These are genetically and functionally closely linl<ed to institutional styles 01 language or institutional languages. although they are neither identical with them nor do they derive from them directly. Institutional styles of language and role repertaríes emerge maínly, though not exclusívely, from the goal-oriented requirements of an institution with a complex divisíon 01 labor. On the one hand, they are adapted to the speeific functions of the institution and, on the olher, to the general conditíons of communi­cation in a system of eomplementary social roles. In contradistinction, styles or codes of language associated with social strata as well as status repertories are based on a common life-style. The life-style is defined by different chances of access to goods and services and by various combinatíons of connubium, com­mensality and a specifíc code of honor. These determine the density and the degree of intimacy ot communícation as well as the range of communication which for sorne social strata ín sorne societies potentially encompasses the whole of social reality. In addítion, it must be kept in mind tha! kinship units are also units of the stratification system. Given the prevalent monopoly of the 1amily on primary soeialization, this fact has ímmediate consequences not only for range and the "content" but also for the stability of the style of language linked to social strata. Indirectly, evolution and employment of linguistic styles associated with social strata: e.g., class-"codes", are influenced by more or less conscious motives such as concerns for the maintenance of mobility barriers and family-transmission ot status which may strengthen the emphasis on elaborate mQrks of identification that cannot be easily "fal<ed". Linguístic styles with this origin tend to depend to a considerable extent on group sOlidarity. The importance of caste or class styles and "eodes" of language 10r the reinforcement of group solidarity may be consid· ered to be partly analogous to 1hat of occupational argots.

Before turning to a more detailed discussion of this matter, a few general re­marks on the structural presupposition oí styles of language associated with social strata, on the concrete 10rms of linguistic ditferentiatíon. and on the social condi­tions 01 their use.

Concerning the first point, lt ls evident that the specific nature of a given histori­cal stratification system will decisively influence the degree of linguistic differenfia­Hans associated with it. The rough Weberian distinction between caste, estate and class societies indicates the wide range of varíability in the elementary basis of all linguistic difterentíation that i5 associated with social stratification. Factors linked with this distinctíon are the rate of inter- and intra-generational mobility, endogamy, religious, pOlítical and legal reinforcement of the stratification system, the visiblity of stratifieational boundaries, the imposition of social distance between strata or ¡ts absence. the internal homogeneity of social strata, the varied forms of socializa­lion that characterize different social strata and the like.

Concerning the second poínt, note that linguistic styles and "codes" are not the only kinds 01 linguistic differentíation that are associated with social stratífication.

39

! ?t y", ,

of Basil Bernstein's interest. (Because his research and his hypotheses contríbute mainly to an understanding of the consequences of linguistic styles linked to social class tor socialization processes, they were discussed earlier in their proper con­text.) Those further studíes in whích Bernstein moves from his original concept of a "public" and a "formallanguage" to the sharp distinction between a "restrícted" and an "elaborated code" (1958, 1959a and b, 1960, 1962a, 1962b) that charac­terizes the worl<lng class and the middle class, respectively, are also highly perti­nent in the present context.

I have now discussed the most important ways in which language ís embedded in social structure. I have drawn attention to the ecological basis of eommunícative matrices; I tried also to show how communicative roles or status-bound torms of communication emerge from this basis within the various in8titutional spheres and within the stratification system, as well as how these communicatíve roles and status are defíned by characterístic rules for the use of language. The development of institutional and stratification-bound línguistic styles or linguistic repertories presupposes this elementary differentíation of communlcative matrices tor the use of language. It is evident that speech-acts are performed in concrete social situa­Hons. In all socíeties these situations are obviously predefined to a high degree by institutions and by the stratification system. Therefore the concrete use of lan­guage (such as the choice of a linguistic style, the adoptíon of a linguistic repertory etc.) is socia/ly predetermined. The individual linguistic "choices" by tlle speaker consequently need not be conscious mental performances. They may be largely habituated rather than subjectively "motivated"-but the patterns of habituation involved here are socially controlled processes. ThRdegree to which social roles and status determine situations and hence al so the "degree of freedom" in the choice of speech style varies fmm one type of society to the other. It varies according to the different institutional and stratificational definitions ot the ditferent types of social situation involved. Dne thing is certain: no situation and no speeQh­aet is completely "open", nor i8 it completely determined by the social structure.

So tar I discussed only the most important or the most obvious form of social determinism, the determínation of the situation and the speech-act by the social structure. As will be shown later, the intersubjective structure 01' the situation imposes further restrictions on the situation and on the speech-acts in it. Before turning to them, another dimensíon of the definition of the situation and thus of the pre-determinatíon of speech-acts deserves special attention·. Two thíngs must not be forgotten. Language is a social phenomenon without a specialized institutional or stratificational basis. There is no doubt that the use of language and the dífferen­tíation of linguistic styles and repertorjes in a given society are determined by its institutions and its system of stratification. It must be noted, however, that lan­guage as a general social phenomenon is also a quasi-ideal system which "tran­scends" institutions and social strata. Language ls acquired through the "filter" of social structure and society determines the use of language in social situations. But as jt ls acquired and internalízed, language becomes a subjective possession that is quasi-independent of all overt social determination. Language as a quasi­ideal system is one of the most general social phenomena, but, paradoxically, it is also the most intímate and immediate personal phenomenon.

Language "filters" social reality. In other words, culture as a configuration ot

42

'1\

't' '1

meanings detining reality is objectified in language. In order to be precise, ono , should say "defining most of realíty" and "objectified" primarily in language, but

empirically, this precisíon IS not necessary. One may say that language as a generar social phenomenon mediates reality to the individual member of society and thus becomes a pervasive aspect of his personal orientatíon in the world. Not withstanding all the structural and stratificational constraints that regulate the use of language in social sítuations (and, in a manner of speal<ing, all human situations are social), the personal orientation in the world, the individual Gommand of lan­guage permit the use of a personal "style". The constraints on the use of language are not absolute. In fact, they cannot be absoluta for communication among human beings.

Dne important example of "individual" stylístic variation is found in various forms of línguistic creativity which serve the individual person to express aspects of experience that are important to him and express them above and beyond lhe standard stylistic means available to him. Such creativity often concerns matters in which distinctions between what is lofty and trivial, sacred and profane, funny and serious, etc., play an important part. Linguistic "creativity" of this kind arises from a background ot common cultural configurations of meaning which set a different model, from one culture to another, for whatis general/yto be considered serious or funny, sacred or profane, etc. It should be clear, incidentally, that thís does not mean that "individual" aspects of style are entirely unrelated to con­straints exerted by the social structute and the system of stratífication. But the presence of a sacred dimension in línguistic use is not necessarily the same as the linguistic repertory of a religious role, to refer to one example among many. (cf. L. White, 1944; St. Newman, 1955; D. French, 1958)

Shared cultural configurations of meaning provide the background of stylistic creativity not only in the realm of language but also in other communicative do­mains. Under certain conditions this general semiotie background may be reflected upon by some members of a society. Experts of various l<inds begin to formulate an aesthetic code, a canon of expressíve forms. But here we evidently leave the area of a narrowly conceived sociology of language and enter the wider domain in which general semiology, aesthetic theory, the sociologies of art, of language and of knowledge have mueh to gain fmm future collaboratíon.

Shared cultural configurations of meaning, social·structural constraints and 50-

cially defined cognitive systems jointly "produce" rhetorical rules, standards 01 oral traditions, "styles" of jOI<ing, patterns for the narration of proverbs, myths, judicial and religious legitimations and the like. At least in sorne types of societies aes­thetic canons develop which function as an explicit, clearly articulated constraínt on styles of language use. This is most easily observable in literate civilizations that developed philological traditions and theoríes of aesthetic forms.

In societies in which the :'style" 01 linguistic use i8 constrained in the sense mentioned above, Le., in societíes in which an "art of language" has evolved and reached a eertain "autonomy", the ways in which "style" and social life become enmeshed and interdependent can be investigated in detail and with precision only by specialized disciplines. It seems, however, safe to aS$ert that all cultures and all languages, no matter how rigid the aesthetic canons in so me areas, retain elaments of relative "stylistic" freedom and "creativity" in other areas. In what

43

exactly such "creativity" consists will evidently difíer from one society to another and from one domain to another. The possibilities of individual variations of "art form~" ra~ge from i~st not o~ers~epping the bounds of the permissible in joking relatlonshlps determlned by klnshlp systems to an eccentric use of alliterations in the sonnet formo It is impossible to give extensive bibliography. tnstead, the inter­ested reader is referred to Part IV: "Speech Play 'and Verbal Artn by O.H. Hymes, 1964, especíally to the introduction of Hymes, and the contributions by S1. New­mano ~nd Gayton, Th. H: Sebeol<, Shiml<in, Emeneau, Hass and Conldin (ef. also M. HalO, 1951; M.G. Smlth, 1957; EO. Arewa and A. Dundes, 1964. The work of EM. Albert, 1964, is also ot special interest).

THE SVNCHRONIC PERSPECTIVE: SPEECH ACT ANO SOCIAL SITUAT~ON With sorne of the above observations, we inevitably reached and oeeasionally ?ros.sed. the border to the next analytical level, the level of social psychology. The Impllcatlons ot these observations for the analysis of speech-acts in social situa­tions still remain to be developed clearly.

Social situations are defined by the social strueture with its ínstitutions and the stratifieation system with varying degrees of precision and articulaUon. Whereas ~heoretically, the ~ndivi~ual ~as socialized in "one" language, he in fact aCqUired: In the ??urse of hls social blography, different role- and status-related repertoríes. I n a~d!.tlon. ~e le~rned the respective situation-related rules of the use of language. Socletles dlffer In the combinations 01 social roles that form role-sets in the association of role-sets with special status and in the types 01 linguistic rep~rtories that are linked with them. It is an important task for empirical research to ascertain w~ich combinations are possible, which typical, which exceptional in what soci­ebes {M.A. Halliday, 1964}. It is evident that in the concrete situation neither "the;' language nor all repertories are actualized. Only those linguistic structures are us~d which are subjeclively perceived as relevant according to the tormerly ac­qUlr~~ ínstitutional and stratificational definitions. It ls another important task for emplr~cal.research to determine the range of permissible, typical and exceptional ?omblnatl?nS?f style~, repe.rto~i~s etc., in the situation (Le., not only consecutívely In the social blographles of Indlvlduals), and to investigate the situational rules for the c~mpatibility of synchronic social role- and linguistic repertory-sets (for general referenee to this problem cf. J.J. Gumperz, 1962a and b; D.H. Hymes, 1962; E. Goffman, 1964; S. Ervin-Tripp, 1964; J.A. Fishman, 1965b).

As has been shown, speech-aets in concrete sítuations are predetermined by a variety of circumstanees. The relevant role and ·status aspeets of a sítuation almost "automatically" actívate specífíe linguistic styles and repertories. Situation­orientad stylistie variations are motivated, usually somewhat more "eonscíously", by general cultural eonfigurations of meaning. The range of permissible variation the stylistic "degrees of freedom" vary of course from society to society and fro~ sítuation to situation.

The concrete form 01 the speech-act, be ít an order, a direction, a questíon. a transmission of information. etc., ls constituted in retation to situatíonally relevant

44

aspects of social reality. The latter may be determined by the kinship system {ef. P. Friedrich, 1964, 1966: J.L. Fischer, 1958), age and sex groups (cf. R. Flannery, 1946, Ch. A. Ferguson 1964), economíc institutions (T.F. Mitchell, 1957). polítical instítutions (RR Solenberger, 1962) and the stratilieation system (cf. J. Gonda, 1948; P. Garvin and S.H. Riesenberg, 1952; RW. Brown and A. Gilman, 1960; J. Rubin, 1963; E.M. Albert, 1964; M. Kenny, 1965; A.M. Stevens, 1965). These situationally relevant aspects of social reality may be also primarily determined by general cultural norms. governing the recognition of the seriou?J the solemn, the holy, etc. (cf. St. Newman, 1955; O. French, 1958; also E.M. Albert. 1964). The situational relevance of social. slruetural and 'cultural factors is clearly apparent in the selective use of semantic, syntactic, morphological, phonological as well as "paralinguistic" constituents in choosíng forms of address (E.E. Evans-Pritchard, 1948; RW. Brown and M. Ford, 1961; J.L. Fischer, 1958; P. Friedrich, 1966; S.K. Das, 1968). personal pronouns (P. Forchheimer, 1953; P. Friedrich, 1966), polite phrases and formulae of courtesy and general etiquette (P. Garvin and S.H. Ríe· senberg, 1952; A.M. Stevens, 1965), as well as in the choice of interjections and in the avoidance of certain words (cf. D. Westermann, 1939; M.R Haas, 1957). C.O. Frake (1964) demonstrated convincingly that a complex interplay of socio­structural, cultural and linguistic faetors of the kinds described above is presup­posed in such a seemingly simple speech-act as the ordering oi a drink.

So far, I have discussed only those determinants of the speech-act which affeet the situation from the "outside", by way of the social determination of the biogra­phíes of the individuals participating in the sítuation. There is, however, an enUre set of intrinsic determinants that must be considered separately. They originate in the "inner" structure of the situation and influence the form of 1he speech-act from "within". As far as the individual ís concerned each situation ís subjectivelystruc­tured in various ways: spatially (into left and right, up and down, near and tar), temporally (into before and after, soon and late, etc.), socially (aecording to the immediacy ot the several symptoms-optícal, acoustie, tactile, etc.) and to the permutations of these symptoms by which partners in the situation are ex­perienced15 The determination of all concrete speech-acts by the subjective expe­rience of the situation. while self-evident, was seldom analyzed systematically (ef. for some important exceptions, N.H. Tur·Sinai, 1957; H. and A. Thornton, 1962; E. Benvéniste, 1966; M.B. Scott and S.M. Lyman, 1968) 16, perhaps precisely because it appears so self-evident that it could be considered trivial. As so often in such matters, nothing could be farther from the truth.

15. It is impossible lo deal with Ihis problem heré. The most importan\ 31ld detailed analyses have been made by Alfred Schulz in continuanon or Husserl's work (el. his Co!lected Papers. 1962, 1904) in his development 01 a phenomenology of the Iife·world (el. al80 Golfman [esp. 1959] and P. Berger and Th. Luckmann (1966. Ch. 1)).

16. .. Al! languages have in common certain categories 01 expressions which seem lo conform to sorne constanl pattern. Although Ihe (linguistic) rorms of these ca\egories are recorded and registered in descriptions. their real functions can be tracad oniy by studying spoken language In actual discourse. They are elementary categories independent of all cultura! determination. They are manireslations 01 subjective experiences 01 índlviduals who locate themselves and indica te their own loeation by means 01 language." (E. Benvénisle, 1966: 3).

The assertion af indepandence 01 cultural is, however. contestable. Take as an example the "relativity" 01 spatial orienlalion: D. (1950. p,.543); and the relation between lemporal structure, time categories and linguistic forms, of. H. and A. Thornton, (1962: 75ft.)

45

Even after allowing for this additional dimension in the analysis of speech-acts we have not done with the problem. The speech-act is a social process within a dynamic situation. !t is predefined from the "outside" institutionally and culturally by the stratification system, and continues to be co-determined from the "outside" whíle being performed. Furthermore, the speech-act is based on subjective struc­turing 01 experience in the situation. But that is not all. The speech-act is also governed by the mirror-eftect 01 the social situation. It is continually modified by the on-going experience of the partner in the situation. The processes of "feed­back" and self-correction and the ellíptic ways of speech, etc. can only be under­stood within thjs dynamic context. Thus, from the point of view of transmission of ínformation, what was said earlier in a situation need not be repeated. If jt is repeated, however, the repetition adds weight to the argument or fulfills specíal "stylistic" 1unctions. During the speech-act, e.g., during such a repetitíon, the partner is observed. He nods his head, says yes, blushes, whereupon the other partner starts stuttering. If he repeats again what he had already said and repeated once, the second repetition has a different meaning than the first In short, the accumulation of shared experiences in the course of ongoing speech-acts modi­fíes the later phases of the speech-act

Speech-acts are embedded in processes of social inferactíon. They are accom­panied by gestures, facial expressions, etc. These can, in part, replace the speech­aet and vice-versa. The interrelation of speech and other forms of (non-verbal) communicatíon is extremely difficult to apprehend systematically. To mention one problem: How much and what kinds of information that the speaker did not intend to convey do es the listener gather in the total speech-act from speech? How much and what kínd from other processes? How fine are the perceptions DI differences in his partner's or his own variations of linguistic style? What conclusíons does he draw about his partner's personality, his mood, etc.? How "correet" or "mislead­ing" are these conclusions? How do they influence social behavior? To what extent can linguistic and "para-linguístíc" parts 01 the speech-act be manipulated intentionally and purposefully? (Many aspects of these questions have been dis­cussed by E. Sapir, 1927; G.W. Allport and P.E. Vernon, 1930; G. Dev.ereux, 1949; G. Herzog, 1949; S. Vendryes, 1950; J.J. Calvert, 1950; J.R. Firth, 1950; R. Pieris, 1951; H.H. Wangler, 1952, J. Ruesch and W. I(ees, 1956; J.A Starl<weather, 1956; J.B. Adams, 1957; St. H. Eldred and O.P. Príce, 1958; R.A Hall, 1959; D. Hymes, 1961a, 1964b; E. Goffman, 1964).

4 On the Socia~ Functions 01 language

In the analysis of the relationship between language, culture and social structure, the question of the functions ot language was inevitably touched upon. Now the question must be dealt with systematically. The starting point tor all further obser­vations on this matter IS the recognition of the relative autonomy of language as

46

a sign system vis-a-vis culture and social structure. At the same time, language is linked with culture and social structure in a variety of intrícate synchronic and diachronic patterns. Without undue reifícation of these concepts it IS therefore legitimate to asl< what language "does" tor culture and social structure. In other words, what does language "do" for man as a thinking and acting social being? It is hardly surprising that various answers have been given to such an important question in the course of human thought about language. No c[aim is made for the great originality of the answer presented here. It merely systematizes notíohs that are already interspersed in the preceding analyses and it mal<es reference to various investigations sorne of which have been reported previously. For the sake of the brevity indicated in an essay of this l<Índ I will keep to essentials.17

THE BASIC~(MASIOLOGICAl FUNCTION Language is a sign system. This determines its basie function. The linguistic sign system is a "mediating" structure. lts constituent elements, the signs, are defined by the relationship between linguistíc forms (Le., patterns of experience that are constituted subjectively in sensory processes in the acoustic modality) and pat­tems of all kinds of experience in all kinds of sensory modalities. as well as other forms of conscious processes such as recollectíons, ficUons, abstractions and the lil<e. This relationship is established intersubjectively. Signs, and of course sign systems, are social phenomena. The relationship between linguistic form and pattern of experience may be called signification, in contradistinction ta the acci­dentalmeanings of signs which need not be intersubjectively established. The exact boundaries of significations, Le .• theír semantic extentions, are defined by the relation of signs to each other in semantic "fields" and ultimately by their location in the sign system.

The reality that is mediated by language is not absolutely predetermined. It arises in experiences that are patterned by and "filtered" through interpretive schemes (J. Piaget, 1926, 1954; A. Gurwitsch. 1957; L.S. Vygotsky, 1934). Schemes of experience are typical ways of "Iool<ing at" and "coplng with" reality. They represent habitualized ways of "problem solving". Subjective schemes of experience arise in concrete contexts of experience. This means that they are based on subjective systems of relevance which determine these contexts. In the course 01 socialization they are also increasingly permeated by intersubjective structures of relevance (G,H. Mead, 1934). In addition to a cognitive dímension, the structures oi relevance also have a pragmatic and an affective dimensiono Which of the dimensions of relevance will prevail in a situation will depend on the nature of the object experienced or of the problem to be acted upon. In the course of generations those schemes of experience which continue to be intersubjectively (Le., socíally) relevant beco me permanently objectified in language. Once this happens, the linguistic "models" of experience will begin to exert ¡nfluence on experience. More precisely, they begin to steer attention and to mold interpreta-

17. A vas! literatura is available on linguístic fúnctions. I refer for the mos! imporlant p~r~pectives lo W. Porzig, 1950, and B. Snal!, 1952; K Bühler, 1934, and F. Kainz, 1954; G. Aevesz, 1946, and D.H. Hymes. 19610.

47

tions of experienc8 by providing a socially and historically eharted "topography 01 rea!ity".1B

Attitudes and motivations of individual s lo whom a pre-exístent social reality, including language, is socially transmitted by various communicative processes­and tha! means, empirically, mainly by language, are thus continuously co-deter­mined by language (C.W. Milis, 1939). It should be stressed that not only subjective and intersubjective relevance structures but also linguístic forms-through which schemes of experience and, indirectly. structures of relevance become objectified -have a cognitive (primarily representative), an affective (m8inly emotional) and a pragmatie (primarily action-programming and triggering) dimensíon of significa­tion (d., e.g., B. Malinowsl<i, 1922; B. Snell, 1952, A.R. Luria, 1961). It must be noted, however, that the semasíological objectification, (Le., the social definition of the relation between linguístic form and pattern 01 experience) presupposes a certain dominance of the cognitive-representative dimensiono Representation ís rooted in language as a sign system (8. Snell, 1952). The evolution of the domi­nance of representation from what must be assumed an original primitive combina­tion in which pragmatic and affective moments may well have predominated is a highly significant fact in the general evolution of human consciousness. It was a process that evidently must have been associated with complex developments in the "evolutionlJ of social organization and culture. The potential dominance of the cognitive-representative dimension in language constitutes an essential condition tor the historieal emergence of science and scientifie "Ianguages". Nevertheless, one should not fall into the obvious trap and define language exclusively by its representatíonal function. Language models based on such definitions are entirely inadequate for an analysis of communication in everyday life.

Language is a unitary structure. This is true of language as a sound system that is subjectively accessible and experienced in a single sensory modality as well as of its semasiological structure. The schemes of experience, however, whíchare objectified in language have a heterogeneous origino According to their origíns in different strata of subíective experience and in different intersubjective relevance contexts they tend to form semasiological levels. Thus it i5 possible to make a formal distinction between typifications characterized by a relatively high degree of singularity (such as names and typifícations of a higher degree of abstraction) and almost entirely formalized syntactical relaUons. Different languages obviously vary considerably in the distribution of these formal tasks among the semantic and syntactic levels of language. As soon as this formal distribution of general semasi­ologícaJ functions is established for a language, a further and more "concrete" analysis of ¡ts semantie components can be made. The linguistic articuíation of reality leads to the formation of semantic domains. Here, too, there will be varia­tions in detail among different languages. 8ut in broad oütline, certain basic similaritíes can be established in the "world view" of most known languages. There

18. er. A Schutz (1955: 194): "The native can be taken as a set of rererences which. in accordance with the relativa natural of {he world as approved by Ihe Iinguistic communíty, haya predeterminad what featuras,of world ara worlhy of being expressed, and therewilh what qualities 01 these features and what relaUons among them deserve attention and what lypífications, conceptualizations, absl(actions, generalizations and ideaUzaUons are relevan! for achíeving typical resulIs by typlcal means."

48

seem to be certain correspondences between semantic domains and general patterns oí the subjective experience 01 different "Ievels" of reality. The apportion­ment of specific items to different levels, the points through which the ¡¡nes sepa­rating the levels are drawn and the sharpness ot the separation, however, differ

from culture to culture. The firstdomain corresponds approximately to experiences based on immediate

sensory perceptions. Its objects, qualities and movements have been shaped on a Qrn:linguis1ic and pre-socialle~..§Lqiª2<,Q§rl~JlQe. In an elementary ~~~§..!h§y~an be said to._illLl)IüYeT~qli;Zbuman. Yet even they acqwre a soéío:Cufiúral dimension throug¡; language ~hich typifies and orders them according to degrees of abstrac­tion and to their socially defined relevance in pragmatic eontexts (Le., their'''useful­ness"). Unguistic typificatíons that belong to this domain play an important part in steering attention, predefining choice of aetion and stabílizing the patterns of subjective experience (cf. A.J. Hallowell, 1951; and E.H. Lenneberg, 1954; R.W. 8rown, 1956, 1958; E.H. and J.M. Roberts, 1956: also K Goldstein,

1948). {;) The second domain corr~sp'Q.'2Q§Jº_§q9.iªLr§-,~l!ty .. h ~JªqtriQt€;lfL~~.QSB_,oLtb.e­

~9i~.~I.;.~, ... ~J9Jfi~I~:~IºGiaíity .. thatjs..peopled-by-beingsvwhos~J.rai.ts,_.¡n.SºJ'.l.LJl_$, they are perceiy~d _9~J.Qlevant, ~r§ .J'?lrni!N" J(,U'19_~?,J?,Y __ w.hiql.) .th-sl... $p'~ªlse(~ _.QL~ IF§l:'!~~~g~l9~)xiij;1.~[(l?e.l\(es+ The boundaries of this level and its internal difler­entiation differ significantly from culture to culture. This IS obvious in a comparison of animistic, totemistic and scientífic cultures (cf. L. Lévy·Bruhl, 1910, 1935; A Sommerfelt, 1938; el. Léví-Strauss, 1962). The objects of this level of reality are, therefore, not universal in the sense in which objects of the first domain are universal (cf., however, J.H. Greenberg, 1966). The very mode of existence of objects apprehended in this semantie domain is social and historical. They are eonstítuted in communication. They are definitely not pre-determined by sensory perceptions. They are actualized in concrete experience on!y as individual in­stances. Linguistic objectifications of objects in thís domain can be relatively singu­lar (John) or anonymous (traffie policeman), concrete (wavíng the flag) or abstraet (government). The degrees of abstraction and anonymíty may be considered as being located on continua. They form semasiological hierarchies that link this domain to other domains. The semantie fields that refer to artifacts, tor example, linl< the domain of social reality to the first domain. The semantic eare of this domain in most human societies is, however, formed by kinship terminologies. (There is a vast body of literature on kinship terminology, mainly in social and cultural anthropology. Some of it was cited earlier. eL also p, Friedrich, 1964; P. Forchheimer, 1953; E. Rose, 1960).

The third cLom~n corr~§e..QmlJiJ9. thªJsty.ruJJ.LsymboliGJ:.eality'"Jtj~~~bJ~cac1e,.dzed by the fact that it can never be directly a¡::>pr~Ilt?D.!=Ied but only thro~.g!:Lr:n&¡.diatíon '01 sy'rñ50Is-'ána"líñgú1sti~-ii~~~·~p.ir:fº!i:Di~.g.$YmbO¡¡~3uñCt1oñs·(cf:H.H ube rt and M:rvfausS;-"T8-9779-S;Á:-Schutz, 1955). Evidently this ls an lnsufficient definition of this level of reality from the point of view 01 the sociology 01 religion. In the present context, however, it must suffiee to point out that the word "cross" can be several words. One belongs to the field of artifacts, one to the field of social burdens to bear, one to the field 01 ritualized gestures. Al! of these are on the level of social reality although the first approaches the fírst domain and the la8t the third

domain. But "cross" may also refer to a symbolic reality, in this instance a religious one, that constitutes a dornain in its own right.

There is etymological evidence oro at least, ther~ are plausible interpretations of etymological evidence that lend support to the hypothesis that the first domain represents an archaic stratum of language (d. 1<. Kronasser, 1952: 114ff. and N. H. Tur·Sinai, 1957). Comparisons in this domain (e.g .• synaesthesia) are already the formal analogue to, and perhaps a "predecessor" of comparisons and metaphors which constitute bridges between the domains and permit creative extentions that can be said and thought. This capacity of language is an essential presupposition for Ihe development of religious, philosophical and scientific forrns of Imowledge (B. Snell. 1955: 258ft. esp. and 299ft.)

Language performs an eminently important social function by incorporating into the formal order of a system of signs the linguistic objectifications of experiences originating in the most varied contexts of life. The effective performance of this function is based on the linguistic stabilization of the psychological processes of abstraction and typification and on the semantic ordering of experiences in fields and domains. The relative heterogeneity of subjective experience and the absolute heterogeneity of experience between individuals is "overcome". in a manner of speaking, by the relative unity of semasiological processes. The basic semasiolog­ical function of language is thus of decisive importance in the mediation of a socially constructed reality. In other words, it is an essential condition of a human social order.

These general observations on the elementary semasiological function of lan~ guage for "society", i.e .• for human beings in social worlds, can be specified by showing what they ímply on the different analytical level and in the various time­perspectives.

On the Supra-Individual Level: a.) Diachronically: the objectification of socially relevant "problem-solving" by providing a semantic structure for things taken for granted and for traditional ways of doing things. Thís is the presupposition for specific forms 01 social control and the foundation of the social accumulation of knowledge. b.) Synchronically: the stabilization of specific, i.e .• semantically pre­defined patterns of communication for social institutions, sociar strata and groups and the semantic differentiation 01 interpretive (and legitimating) schemes and structures of relevance pertaining specifically to institutions. social strata and groups. This is the presupposition for the conscious acquisition and internalization of knowledge on patterns of action that are relevant for the functioning of institu­tions and the survival of social strata and social groups.

On the Individual Level: a.) Diachronically: mediating in the internalization of socially pre-defined configurations of meaning. For the individual, these configura· tions of meaning form the basis of subjectively meaningful social behavior; they are the background of things taken for granted in the planning of social actions (d. A. Schutz, 1959) as well as in the socially determined interpretation ot the past (cf. iv1. Halbwachs, 1925. 1950). Language mediates reality to the individual. It mal<es it possible for him to find his bearings in the world as a persono b.) Syn-

50

chronically: the mediation of subjective intentions in intersubjective situations . .This is the presupposition for the social action as an ongoing reciprocal relationship.

SfECONDARV fU~\DCT~ONS Language Is a quasi-ideal system of meanings. It is also the most important social medium of knowledge. It also actualizes its potentialities in speech acts. In other words, language is not only a sign-system but also a basic form 01 Imowledge and a system of action. Like all forms of I<nowledge, language is socially distributed. The social structure determines the chances of access to l<nowledge. The primary functtons of language orlginate in its basic status as a sign-syslem; its secondary functions derive from íts attributes as a form ot I<nowledge and as a system of

action. The secondary functions of language manitest themselves in speech acts as

constitutive elements of social situations. The primary function of language evi· dently also emerges in concrete social situations. In fact. it 15 usually the main function in the speech act. But it is characteristic 01 the secondary functions of language that they do not depend directly on the semasiological structure of language. They are however closely linked to other aspects of behavior that are part of the concrete unity of social situations, expressions, gestures. clothing, etc.

The Indicative Function The basic social function of language is to enable the speaker to objectify his communicative intentions in discourse, from orders to scientific statements, and to enable the listener to grasp these inte,ntions in con­gruent acts of interpretation. But every speech act inevitably indudes manifesta­tions of subjective processes which the speaker perhaps did not intend to make known. Because language is socially distributed, speech acts serve to categorize and typify the speaker not only as to his momentary psychological disposition, but also as to his social biography. In the speech act the linguistic sign also serves simultaneously as a symptom or as an indication. In this respect language can be compared to other aspects of behavior. Its complex but orderly structure, however, is responsible tor its particularly high potential as a set of symptoms and indica· tions. Individual speech styles and linguistic repertories provide the listener with a multitude of symptoms from which conclusions are drawn about the speaker's emotional state, his definition of the situation and his social biography, i.e .• his «background". These conclusions about the speaker form an"important part of the information on which the listener bases his definition of the situation. The ability to interpret speech styles correctly varies from one society to the next. It should be noted that the correctness of such interpretations is also a matter of social definition. Furthermore, incorrect interpretations may influence behavior as much as correct ones. This "ability" is also socially dístributed. although the pattern of distribution may differ from one society to the next (cf. R. Flannery, 1946; R.I. McDavid Jr., 1948; G. Herzog, 1949; St. Newman, 1955; J.J. Calvert, 1950; A. Valdman, 1959; W. Labov, 1968). The speaker may of course become aware that his speech does not only objectify his communicative intentions but also transmits information that is not semasiologically encoded by him. This is a matter of simple

51

ana!ogy: every speal<er is al so a listener. The speaker therefore mal<es use of his accumulated knowledge about the interpretative conclusions oi typical listeners lil<e him. He may then try to manipulate his speech style tor purposes of his own (E. Goffman, 1959, esp. Ch. V).

The Phatic Function The phatic function derives al least partly but perhaps not fully from the indicative function. The actualizations of language in speech acts help to typify the speaker as a representative of a respected, beloved, hated, despised, etc. social category. This typification leads more or less automatically to the establishment of rapport, identífication, solidarity and, oí course, their oppo­sites, Le., dislil<e, hatred, conflict. Language plays an important role in the cohesion of groups as well as in conflict among groups (L. Marshal, 1961). This has been documented for a wide variety of social groups includ!ng criminals (D.W. Maurer, 1939.1950, 1955), drug addicts, school children (1. and W. apie, 1immigrants and minority groups (G.C. Barker, 1947, 1950; J.A. Fishman, 1964, 1965a) but also for professional groups, religious sects, social strata (ef. A.R. 1962), political groups (cf. R. Sereno, 1949) and nations (H.L. Koppelmann, 1956). It is surely significant that in tlle "folk sociology" of everyday lite secondary functions of language occupy an important Distinguishing secondary functions from the primary social function 01 language has a heuristic purpose. 1t aids in the analysis of extremely complex processes. But jt must not lead to a reification of eoncepts. It therefore hardly needs to be stressed that the various social functíons 01 language are empirically intentioned. To mentíon one example: the accidental meaning of the sign may be in11uenced by secondary functions as they appear in the social situation of concrete speech acts. The speech aets are embedded in typically recurrent social sítuations which are pre-defined by the social structure. The secondary functions which are actualized in these situations are thus co­determined by the definition of the situation on the part of actors. If they. persis­tently modify the accidental meanings of the semantic components of the speech aet they will eventually also change its signi1ication. Language "determines" speech acts; speech acts "determine" language. The semasiologícal function of language and its secondary functions 'are in a dynamic relationship at the intersec­tion 01 historical and subjective processes. Language ís a quasi-ídeal system of signs that is produeed and maintained and modified in concrete intersubjective human activities.

5 ibUogrraphic lPostscript on tlhe last F~ve Years

I said in the introduction that I could not try to presenl a systematic review 01 developments in the years that passed sinee I wrote this essay. The pasl dozen years. the first six years of which I did attempt to cover, were characterized by an extraordinary expansion of ¡ni eres!

52

in language in various disciplines. Sociology was one 01 them. 1 haven't made an exac\ GQuot of publications in Ihis area bul I venture lo guess that more so~iological work on language was published in lhis perlad than in all other years 01 Ihe eXlStence 01 s~clology as ~n independent intellectual discipline pul togelher. I cannat do more t~an glVe ~ .cursonly annolated selective biblíography of sorne 01 the developments tha! In my oplmon were parlicularly importan! in the second half 01 these dozen years sinc~ 1960. as a supplement lo the main bibliography. I hope that this will help readers who are senously mterested to work their way through what is now a veritable maze of publications. I may have o~erlool\ed so~e books 01 importanee but I am convinced that b~ !ollowing up the ref~ren~es l~ the selectlon 01 bool<s presented here nothíng of real sígnlflcance for the 80CIOlogl61 wllI escape the

reader. . . r Most developments followed the general paUarn that was alre~dy d~scemí?le ~n ear ler

years, Tha study of the línks between cogniti~n an~ language I~ chddren 15 vlgorously pursued in varíous countries. The seeds of the ploneenng wark ?f PI~g~t, Vygotsl<'y and the Sterns are beginning lo bear frui!. The lines dividing psychology, IlngUlstlcs and soclology are becoming increasíngly blurred in these investigations. T.he .developm.e~t was ~asl~ally healthy_ 11 encouraged well-executed interdisciplinary investlgabon and Oflgtnal conlnbutlOns to knowledge in this area. Among these are:

Bernstein, Basil . 1971 Class¡ Codes and Control. Volume 1. Theoretical Studies towards a Soclology of

Language. London.

Helmers, He'rmann 1969 "Zur Sprache des Kindes." Darmstadt.

Lawton, Denis 1968 Social Class, Language and Education. london.

Oevermann, Ulrich . . 1972 "Sprache und sozíale Herkunft," Ein Beitrag zur Analyse schlchlenspezlsch.er

Sozialisationsprozesse und ihrer Bedeutung für den Schulerfo!g. Franl<furt am Maln.

Robinson, W.P. and Susan J. Rackstraw . 1972 A Question of Answers. London and Boston.

Smith, Frank and George A. Miller . 1966 The Genesís oi Language, A Psycholinguis;tic Approach, proceedlng~ of a Co~fer­

ence on "Language Developmel1t in Children," sponsored by the Natlonal Ins~ltule of Child Heallh and Human Development, Natíonallnstitute of Health. Cambndge,

Mass. and London.

Lambert, W.E. and G.R. Tucl<er . 1972 Bílíngual Education o{ Chi/dren. Rowley, Mass.: The St. Lambert Expenment.

But the sudden fashion of Ihe concept of socialization, its ideologícal exploi.lation and some rather derivatory writing in educational theoryand research have also provlded the context

far a fload of pseudo-scientific nonsense. .... This development is intimately connected with the revival 01 ¡nteres! In soc,~1 cI~ss In .the

sixtíes. Writing on language and social class expanded by leap~ ~nd. ba~nds 10 thls p~rI?d. The warl< of Bernstein and associates on class codes and soclahzatlon In England, slmll.ar worl< by Oevermann and others in Germany and ~he worl< ~f. Labov and ott)ers on the sO?lal stratilication of American English not only provlded empmcal knowledge and theoretlcal clarification of an important problem, but was exploited in peculiar ways by vari.ous intellectu­als and semi-intellectuals who claimed public attention by riding on ¡he coat-Ialls ?f s?holarly and non-scholarly farms of social criticismo An aimast endless strear:' .of pubhcatlons 00

linguistic barriers to "emancip.ation" and the UI{8 was the result. Some of IIIS worthless. Some of it cannol be reieeled ou~ of hand. It is symptomatic of a search tor b~tler knowledge­for the sal<e of policy and, perhaps. change tar the better-on an important Issue. The degree of linguistic "determination" of cognitive pertormances in the context af slructurally deter-

53