
Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used. It also studies how lects differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, religion, economic status, gender, level of education, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social class or socio-economic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place (dialect), language usage varies among social classes, and it is these ''sociolects'' that sociolinguistics studies. For example, a sociolinguist might determine through study of social attitudes that Black English Vernacular would not be considered appropriate language use in a business or professional setting; he or she might also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, and other aspects of this sociolect much as a dialectologist would study the same for a regional dialect. The study of language variation is concerned with social constraints determining language in its contextual environment. Code-switching is the term given to the use of different varieties of language in different social situations. William Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the language, while the latter's focus is on the language's effect on the society. == Sociolinguistic variable == Studies in the field of sociolinguistics typically take a sample population and interview them, assessing the realisation of certain sociolinguistic variables. Labov specifies the ideal sociolinguistic variable to * be high in frequency, * have a certain immunity from conscious suppression, * be an integral part of larger structures, and * be easily quantified on a linear scale. Phonetic variables tend to meet these criteria and are often used, as are grammatical variables and, more rarely, lexical variables. Examples for phonetic variables are: the frequency of the Glottal stop, the height or backness of a Vowel or the realisation of word-endings. An example for grammatical variables is the frequency of Double negative. ==Sociolinguistic differences according to gender== ===Minimal responses=== One of the ways in which the communicative competence of men and women differ is in their use of minimal responses, i.e., paralinguistic features such as ‘mhm’ and ‘yeah’, which is behaviour associated with collaborative language use. Men, on the other hand, generally use them less frequently and where they do, it is usually to show agreement, as Zimmerman and West’s (1977) study of turn-taking in conversation indicates. ===Questions=== Men and women differ in their use of questions in conversations. For men, a question is usually a genuine request for information whereas with women it can often be a rhetorical means of engaging the other’s conversational contribution or of acquiring attention from others conversationally involved, techniques associated with a collaborative approach to language use (Barnes, 1971). Therefore women use questions more frequently (Todd,1983). ===Turn-taking=== As the work of DeFrancisco (1991) shows, female linguistic behaviour characteristically encompasses a desire to take turns in conversation with others, which is opposed to men’s tendency towards centring on their own point or remaining silent when presented with such implicit offers of conversational turn-taking as are provided by hedges such as ‘y’ know’ and ‘isn’t it’. This desire for turn-taking gives rise to complex forms of interaction in relation to the more regimented form of turn-taking commonly exhibited by men (Sacks et al., 1974). ===Changing the topic of conversation=== According to Dorval (1990), in his study of same-sex friend interaction, males tend to change subject more frequently than females. This difference may well be at the root of the archaic conception that women chatter and talk too much, and may still trigger the same thinking in some males. In this way lowered estimation of women may arise. Incidentally, this androcentric attitude of women as chatterers arguably arose from the idea that any female conversation was too much talking according to the patriarchal, Judeo-Christian consideration of silence as a womanly virtue. ===Self-disclosure=== Female tendencies toward self-disclosure, i.e., sharing their problems and experiences with others, often to offer sympathy (Tannen, 1991:49), contrasts with male tendencies to non-self disclosure and professing advice when confronted with another’s problems. ===Verbal aggression=== Men tend to be more verbally aggressive in conversing (Labov, 1972), frequently using threats, profanities, yelling and name-calling. Women, on the whole, deem this to disrupt the flow of conversation and not (Eder’s 1990) as a means of upholding one’s hierarchical status in the conversation. Incidentally, where women swear, it is usually to demonstrate to others what is normal behaviour for them (Eder, 1990). ===Listening and attentiveness=== It appears that women attach more weight than men to the importance of Empathy in conversation, with its connotations of power to the listener as confidant(e) of the speaker . This attachment of import by women to listening is inferred by women’s normally lower rate of interruption – i.e., disrupting the flow of conversation with a topic unrelated to the previous one (Fishman, 1980) – and by their largely increased use of minimal responses in relation to men (Zimmerman and West, 1975). Men, however, interrupt far more frequently with non-related topics, especially in the mixed sex setting (Zimmerman and West,1975) and, far from rendering a female speaker's responses minimal, are apt to greet her conversational spotlights with silence, as the work of DeFrancisco (1991) demonstrates. All of this suggests that men see conversation as a means by which to draw attention to themselves, either by interruption or by questionably undermining what the woman has to say by non-paralinguistic response. ===Dominance versus subjection=== This in turn suggests a dichotomy between a male desire for conversational dominance - noted by Leet-Pellegrini (1980) with reference to male experts speaking more verbosely than their female counterparts – and a female aspiration to group conversational participation. One corollary of this is, according to Coates (1993: 202), that males are afforded more attention in the context of the classroom and that this can lead to their gaining more attention in scientific and technical subjects, which in turn can lead to their achieving better success in those areas, ultimately leading to their having more power in a technocratic society. However, women have, on average, higher verbal intelligence than men (Eysenck, 1966:4). ===Politeness=== Politeness in speech is described (Brown and Levinson, 1978) in terms of positive and negative face: respectively, the idea of pandering to the other’s desire to be liked and admired and not to suffer imposition. Both forms, according to Brown’s study of the Tzeltal language (1980), are used more frequently by women whether in mixed or single-sex pairs, suggesting for Brown a greater sensitivity in women than have men to the face needs of others. In short, women are to all intents and purposes largely politer than men. However, negative face politeness can be potentially viewed as weak language because of its associated hedges and tag questions, a view propounded by O’Barr and Atkins (1980) in their work on courtroom interaction. ===Complimentary language=== Compliments are closely linked to politeness in that, as Coates believes (1983), they cater for positive face needs. Yet, because they do not account for negative face needs, they can be consternating for those not wishing to be imposed upon, especially where this is in a mixed-sex setting. Nevertheless, an increased use of compliments by a women in relation to men (Holmes, 1982) could be held by some men to be indicative of her supposed need for assurance, which may be interpreted as a sign of weakness, resulting in a poorer opinion of her. ===Collaborative versus competitive=== Women tend towards collaborative language, a fact manifest in their relatively high use of minimal responses, questions, hedges, listening and turn-taking to encourage the other to talk; whereas men generally employ competitive styles as suggested by their silent responses and tendency to interrupt, both of which can be considered ways of competing with the other participants for attention and dominance in the conversation. ===Private versus public language=== Women tend to conversation orientated towards the private life, as their listening and politeness propensities imply by their very nature as tools with which to be sensitive to private feelings and likeability; whereas men can be held to have a more public-oriented conversational technique - as is implied by their advice-giving response tendencies to questions, giving an outward and so more public impression of the man as knowledgeable - and by their verbal aggression propensities to outwardly and so publicly establish an hierarchy within the conversational setting. ===Agreement versus dissent=== Women tend generally to have an agreement motivation in conversation, suggested by their usual half-implicit agreement to maintain topic continuity in a conversation at a rate higher to that of men. Men, on the other hand, tend more towards challenge in conversational motivations, a fact hinted at by their tendency to challenge the other’s conversation topic with a higher rate of topic change. ===Intimate versus detached=== Women can be said to tend towards intimacy in conversing, as suggestive in their use of such politeness techniques as hedges, minimal responses and tag questions to cater for such intimate considerations as positive and negative face; whereas men may be held to exhibit independence and, indeed, distance in conversing, a fact implied by their reduced incidence of resorting to self-disclosure. ==References== *Barnes, Douglas (1971), Language and Learning in the Classroom, Journal of Curriculum Studies. 3:1 *Brown, Penelope (1980), How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan community, pp. 111-36 in McConnell-Ginet, S. et al. [eds] Women and Language in Literature and Society. Praeger, New York. *Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1978), Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena, pp 56-289 in Goody, Esther [ed] Questions and Politeness. Cambridge University Press. *Coates, Jennifer (1983), Language and Sexism, LAUD Paper No. 173, University of Duisburg. *Coates, Jennifer (1987), Epistemic modality and spoken discourse, Transactions of the Philological Society, 110-31. *Coates, Jennifer (1993), Women,Men and language. London: Longman *DeFrancisco, Victoria (1991), The sound of silence: how men silence women in marital relationships, Discourse and Society 2 (4):413-24. *Dorval, Bruce (1990), Conversational Organization and its Development, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. *Eder, Donna (1990), Serious and Playful Disputes: variation in conflict talk among female adolescents, pp. 67-84 in Grimshaw, Allan [ed]Conflict Talk, Cambridge University Press. *Eysenck, H.J (1966), Check Your Own I.Q. St Ives: Penguin *Fishman, Pamela(1980), Interactional Shiftwork, Heresies 2:99-101. *Holmes, Janet (1988), Paying Compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy, Journal of Pragmatics 12:445-65 *Labov, William (1972), Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. *Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. (1980) Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise, pp. 97-104 in Giles, Howard, Robinson, W. Peters, and Smith, Philip M [eds] Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press. *O’Barr and Atkins (1980) ‘Women’s Language’ or ‘powerless language’?, pp. 93-110 in McConnell-Ginet et al. [eds] Women and languages in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger. *Sacks et al (1974) A simple systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language 50:696-735. *Tannen, Deborah (1991), You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, London: Virago. *Todd, Alexandra Dundas (1983), A diagnosis of doctor-patient discourse in the prescription of contraception, pp. 159-87 in Fisher, Sue and Todd, Alexandra D. [eds] The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington D.C. *Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace (19750 Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation, pp 105-29 in Thorne, Barrie and Henly, Nancy [eds] Language and sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House *Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace (1977), Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation, pp. 105-29 in thorne, Barrie and Henley, Nancy [eds] Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowly, Massachusetts: Newbury House. == Further reading == *The Language War, Robin Tolmach Lakoff, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 2000, hardcover, 322 pages, ISBN 0-520-21666-0 ==See also== *Dell Hymes *Deborah Tannen Social psychology Sociolinguistics br:Sossiolinguistik
In constructing an article which is viewed as application of sociolinguistics, the conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis was conceived as : ''May He go. I have no use for Him.'' Hieronymus Colloredo Hear-say has it that this particular instance of language use is systematized as " ''singularis subordinatus'' " (''simply swamped''). Can this assertion be confirmed or denied (also towards Talk:Pluralis Majestatis), or otherwise instruct the naming of this parrticular instance --- please? Thanks, User:Fwappler, Jan. 5, 15:21 PST. p.s. The Instruction by which to evaluate and name the sociolinguistic instance under consideration is that : One individual (here Hieronymus Colloredo) adressing another individual (there Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) as if (the former) were in the middle of a crowd of several, addressing them all at once. : (Therefore also a conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis, where one individual presumes to speak ''for'' many.) Also, since the initial example is Reality but only a translation from the German language : ''Mag Er geh'n, Ich brauch' Ihn nicht!'' the notion to be named has been viewed as invariant in considering the alternative : ''May He Leave, I'll miss Him not!'' User:Fwappler, Jan. 5, 16:26 PST. p.s. Alternatively, Google just reminded me to improve the German counterpart to : ''(Dann) Geh' Er doch, I brauch' Ihn nicht!'' which is Here nevertheless commensurate; though perhaps not Bridge all aspects. Please provide some Canon English language examples ... ----------- The following doesn't make sense: Direct applications:
Sociolinguistics instructs derivative sciences and popular pastimes such as the study of Self-reference, and Seinfeld as an instance of self-reference, arguably by Allusion. As for: ''... doesn't make sense ...'' :Would You kindly investigate or suggest what did or what ''ought'' to instruct the (as of this writing) apparently linked articles instead? : Thanks, User:Fwappler, Jan. 9th, 7:09 (PST). :: Your question does not make sense either. I don't understand what you mean when you say "instruct". Neither does anyone else. -- User:Tarquin As for: ''I don't understand what you express when you write "instruct".'' : {Borrowing the confines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopedic Network, I may express my preference that :: [`[Instruction:can be conceived as:Reproducibility|Hangul],] :: [`[Instruction:can be conceived as:Duration|Catherine II of Russia:Nakaz of 1767],] : ''together''.} As for: ''Neither does anyone else.'' : I may not be able to express my preference for this to be an overstatement as readily as you can make this statement itself. : Otherwise your question does not make sense either. Would You prefer to deny the (for lack of a better word) ''linguistic similarity'' between ''encyclopedia'', ''instruction'' (noun), and ''to instruct'' (verb)? Regards, (User:Fwappler 16:45 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)). ::Well, concerning the sentence: :::Would You kindly investigate or suggest what did or what ''ought'' to instruct the (as of this writing) apparently linked articles instead? ::I do not understand why the word "instruct" is preceded by a "what." Books or movies may be instructive, but only people can instruct. Either the use of the word "what," or the use of the word "instruct," is inappropriate. Also, people instruct other people, not things. A person cannot instruct an article (a person can read or write an article, and even read or write an instructive article, but cannot instruct an article). So I too have no idea what this sentence means. Finally, I have no idea what any of this has to do with sociolinguistics -- the issues here seem concerned with semantics and structural linguistics... User:Slrubenstein As for: ''I do not understand why the word "instruct" is preceded by a "what." [...] '' : To express a question. For example, (courtesy Google), given the statement: :: ''... In laying out the opposing position, you should observe the "Principle of Charity"- a sort of golden rule of reason which instructs us to treat all other ...'' (per www.ciesin.org/metadata/TOC/standards.html), : I'd consider the question :: ''What does, or what ought to, instruct us to treat all other [...]?'' : well-posed, and eliciting the answer: ''"Principle of Charity"- a sort of golden rule of reason.'' : Similarly, given: :: ''... by Executive Order 12906, "Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure," which instructs US federal agencies ... (at www.biodiversityassociates.org/ general/enews/en1jun02.html), : I'd consider the question :: ''What does, or what ought to, instruct US federal agencies [...]?'' : well-posed, and eliciting the answer: ''Executive Order 12906 [...]''. : However, having tried to look up questions of the form I meant to ask User:Tarquin, I find that questions of the form :: ''What did, or what ought to, inform ...?'' : appears perhaps more frequently. As for: ''A person cannot instruct an article (a person can read or write an article, and even read or write an instructive article, but cannot instruct an article).'' : Agreed; that's why I was asking about ''What instructs [...]?'' : as in ''Which impersonal principle or fact allowed the links under consideration to persist; rather than ''Who instructs [...]?''. : I had imagined the reply to be understood that, roughly, ''the occurence of the string "Seinfield", in the link labels above as well as in the Seinfeld article (and/or in related files)''... As for: ''Finally, I have no idea what any of this has to do with sociolinguistics --'' : Please review (whether and) how ''Seinfieldism'' arises in the Seinfeld article. AFAIU it does, due to a certain (social?) stratification amongst the viewership of this sitcom. As for: ''the issues here seem concerned with semantics and structural linguistics'' : Possibly. It'd be nice if you could address my initial question on this page; especially if you have at your command scientifically instructive and distinctive aspects of language. Thanks, User:Fwappler 08:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC). == gynocentric == Has anyone bothered to read the male-female sociolinguistic differences in their entirety? If so, do they not sound feeble and narrowminded? There are emotionally and normativelly laden words for every characteristic, distributed on the basis of the stereotypical assumption that women are striving for intimacy, while men born to compete. This is the old Darwinian view of evolution, applied to a petit-bourgeois society which divides the nuclear family into the house labour unit and the provider unit. Look at the biased results it produces. With such results sociolinguistics doesn't even have a claim to science. It's pure reproduction of stereotypes- with the new trend to be gynocentric. It would be one thing to seek to distribute the light between men and women, its another when the males are described as aggresive conversationalists vs. the democratic (hence "good") peaceful women. Bunk!
Linguistics Sociology
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Sociolinguistics:
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used. It also studies how lects differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, religion, economic status, gender, level of education, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social class or socio-economic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place (dialect), language usage varies among social classes, and it is these ''sociolects'' that sociolinguistics studies. For example, a sociolinguist might determine through study of social attitudes that Black English Vernacular would not be considered appropriate language use in a business or professional setting; he or she might also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, and other aspects of this sociolect much as a dialectologist would study the same for a regional dialect. The study of language variation is concerned with social constraints determining language in its contextual environment. Code-switching is the term given to the use of different varieties of language in different social situations. William Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the language, while the latter's focus is on the language's effect on the society. == Sociolinguistic variable == Studies in the field of sociolinguistics typically take a sample population and interview them, assessing the realisation of certain sociolinguistic variables. Labov specifies the ideal sociolinguistic variable to * be high in frequency, * have a certain immunity from conscious suppression, * be an integral part of larger structures, and * be easily quantified on a linear scale. Phonetic variables tend to meet these criteria and are often used, as are grammatical variables and, more rarely, lexical variables. Examples for phonetic variables are: the frequency of the Glottal stop, the height or backness of a Vowel or the realisation of word-endings. An example for grammatical variables is the frequency of Double negative. ==Sociolinguistic differences according to gender== ===Minimal responses=== One of the ways in which the communicative competence of men and women differ is in their use of minimal responses, i.e., paralinguistic features such as ‘mhm’ and ‘yeah’, which is behaviour associated with collaborative language use. Men, on the other hand, generally use them less frequently and where they do, it is usually to show agreement, as Zimmerman and West’s (1977) study of turn-taking in conversation indicates. ===Questions=== Men and women differ in their use of questions in conversations. For men, a question is usually a genuine request for information whereas with women it can often be a rhetorical means of engaging the other’s conversational contribution or of acquiring attention from others conversationally involved, techniques associated with a collaborative approach to language use (Barnes, 1971). Therefore women use questions more frequently (Todd,1983). ===Turn-taking=== As the work of DeFrancisco (1991) shows, female linguistic behaviour characteristically encompasses a desire to take turns in conversation with others, which is opposed to men’s tendency towards centring on their own point or remaining silent when presented with such implicit offers of conversational turn-taking as are provided by hedges such as ‘y’ know’ and ‘isn’t it’. This desire for turn-taking gives rise to complex forms of interaction in relation to the more regimented form of turn-taking commonly exhibited by men (Sacks et al., 1974). ===Changing the topic of conversation=== According to Dorval (1990), in his study of same-sex friend interaction, males tend to change subject more frequently than females. This difference may well be at the root of the archaic conception that women chatter and talk too much, and may still trigger the same thinking in some males. In this way lowered estimation of women may arise. Incidentally, this androcentric attitude of women as chatterers arguably arose from the idea that any female conversation was too much talking according to the patriarchal, Judeo-Christian consideration of silence as a womanly virtue. ===Self-disclosure=== Female tendencies toward self-disclosure, i.e., sharing their problems and experiences with others, often to offer sympathy (Tannen, 1991:49), contrasts with male tendencies to non-self disclosure and professing advice when confronted with another’s problems. ===Verbal aggression=== Men tend to be more verbally aggressive in conversing (Labov, 1972), frequently using threats, profanities, yelling and name-calling. Women, on the whole, deem this to disrupt the flow of conversation and not (Eder’s 1990) as a means of upholding one’s hierarchical status in the conversation. Incidentally, where women swear, it is usually to demonstrate to others what is normal behaviour for them (Eder, 1990). ===Listening and attentiveness=== It appears that women attach more weight than men to the importance of Empathy in conversation, with its connotations of power to the listener as confidant(e) of the speaker . This attachment of import by women to listening is inferred by women’s normally lower rate of interruption – i.e., disrupting the flow of conversation with a topic unrelated to the previous one (Fishman, 1980) – and by their largely increased use of minimal responses in relation to men (Zimmerman and West, 1975). Men, however, interrupt far more frequently with non-related topics, especially in the mixed sex setting (Zimmerman and West,1975) and, far from rendering a female speaker's responses minimal, are apt to greet her conversational spotlights with silence, as the work of DeFrancisco (1991) demonstrates. All of this suggests that men see conversation as a means by which to draw attention to themselves, either by interruption or by questionably undermining what the woman has to say by non-paralinguistic response. ===Dominance versus subjection=== This in turn suggests a dichotomy between a male desire for conversational dominance - noted by Leet-Pellegrini (1980) with reference to male experts speaking more verbosely than their female counterparts – and a female aspiration to group conversational participation. One corollary of this is, according to Coates (1993: 202), that males are afforded more attention in the context of the classroom and that this can lead to their gaining more attention in scientific and technical subjects, which in turn can lead to their achieving better success in those areas, ultimately leading to their having more power in a technocratic society. However, women have, on average, higher verbal intelligence than men (Eysenck, 1966:4). ===Politeness=== Politeness in speech is described (Brown and Levinson, 1978) in terms of positive and negative face: respectively, the idea of pandering to the other’s desire to be liked and admired and not to suffer imposition. Both forms, according to Brown’s study of the Tzeltal language (1980), are used more frequently by women whether in mixed or single-sex pairs, suggesting for Brown a greater sensitivity in women than have men to the face needs of others. In short, women are to all intents and purposes largely politer than men. However, negative face politeness can be potentially viewed as weak language because of its associated hedges and tag questions, a view propounded by O’Barr and Atkins (1980) in their work on courtroom interaction. ===Complimentary language=== Compliments are closely linked to politeness in that, as Coates believes (1983), they cater for positive face needs. Yet, because they do not account for negative face needs, they can be consternating for those not wishing to be imposed upon, especially where this is in a mixed-sex setting. Nevertheless, an increased use of compliments by a women in relation to men (Holmes, 1982) could be held by some men to be indicative of her supposed need for assurance, which may be interpreted as a sign of weakness, resulting in a poorer opinion of her. ===Collaborative versus competitive=== Women tend towards collaborative language, a fact manifest in their relatively high use of minimal responses, questions, hedges, listening and turn-taking to encourage the other to talk; whereas men generally employ competitive styles as suggested by their silent responses and tendency to interrupt, both of which can be considered ways of competing with the other participants for attention and dominance in the conversation. ===Private versus public language=== Women tend to conversation orientated towards the private life, as their listening and politeness propensities imply by their very nature as tools with which to be sensitive to private feelings and likeability; whereas men can be held to have a more public-oriented conversational technique - as is implied by their advice-giving response tendencies to questions, giving an outward and so more public impression of the man as knowledgeable - and by their verbal aggression propensities to outwardly and so publicly establish an hierarchy within the conversational setting. ===Agreement versus dissent=== Women tend generally to have an agreement motivation in conversation, suggested by their usual half-implicit agreement to maintain topic continuity in a conversation at a rate higher to that of men. Men, on the other hand, tend more towards challenge in conversational motivations, a fact hinted at by their tendency to challenge the other’s conversation topic with a higher rate of topic change. ===Intimate versus detached=== Women can be said to tend towards intimacy in conversing, as suggestive in their use of such politeness techniques as hedges, minimal responses and tag questions to cater for such intimate considerations as positive and negative face; whereas men may be held to exhibit independence and, indeed, distance in conversing, a fact implied by their reduced incidence of resorting to self-disclosure. ==References== *Barnes, Douglas (1971), Language and Learning in the Classroom, Journal of Curriculum Studies. 3:1 *Brown, Penelope (1980), How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan community, pp. 111-36 in McConnell-Ginet, S. et al. [eds] Women and Language in Literature and Society. Praeger, New York. *Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1978), Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena, pp 56-289 in Goody, Esther [ed] Questions and Politeness. Cambridge University Press. *Coates, Jennifer (1983), Language and Sexism, LAUD Paper No. 173, University of Duisburg. *Coates, Jennifer (1987), Epistemic modality and spoken discourse, Transactions of the Philological Society, 110-31. *Coates, Jennifer (1993), Women,Men and language. London: Longman *DeFrancisco, Victoria (1991), The sound of silence: how men silence women in marital relationships, Discourse and Society 2 (4):413-24. *Dorval, Bruce (1990), Conversational Organization and its Development, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. *Eder, Donna (1990), Serious and Playful Disputes: variation in conflict talk among female adolescents, pp. 67-84 in Grimshaw, Allan [ed]Conflict Talk, Cambridge University Press. *Eysenck, H.J (1966), Check Your Own I.Q. St Ives: Penguin *Fishman, Pamela(1980), Interactional Shiftwork, Heresies 2:99-101. *Holmes, Janet (1988), Paying Compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy, Journal of Pragmatics 12:445-65 *Labov, William (1972), Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. *Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. (1980) Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise, pp. 97-104 in Giles, Howard, Robinson, W. Peters, and Smith, Philip M [eds] Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press. *O’Barr and Atkins (1980) ‘Women’s Language’ or ‘powerless language’?, pp. 93-110 in McConnell-Ginet et al. [eds] Women and languages in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger. *Sacks et al (1974) A simple systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language 50:696-735. *Tannen, Deborah (1991), You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, London: Virago. *Todd, Alexandra Dundas (1983), A diagnosis of doctor-patient discourse in the prescription of contraception, pp. 159-87 in Fisher, Sue and Todd, Alexandra D. [eds] The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington D.C. *Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace (19750 Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation, pp 105-29 in Thorne, Barrie and Henly, Nancy [eds] Language and sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House *Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace (1977), Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation, pp. 105-29 in thorne, Barrie and Henley, Nancy [eds] Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowly, Massachusetts: Newbury House. == Further reading == *The Language War, Robin Tolmach Lakoff, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 2000, hardcover, 322 pages, ISBN 0-520-21666-0 ==See also== *Dell Hymes *Deborah Tannen Social psychology Sociolinguistics br:Sossiolinguistik
Sociolinguistics
In constructing an article which is viewed as application of sociolinguistics, the conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis was conceived as : ''May He go. I have no use for Him.'' Hieronymus Colloredo Hear-say has it that this particular instance of language use is systematized as " ''singularis subordinatus'' " (''simply swamped''). Can this assertion be confirmed or denied (also towards Talk:Pluralis Majestatis), or otherwise instruct the naming of this parrticular instance --- please? Thanks, User:Fwappler, Jan. 5, 15:21 PST. p.s. The Instruction by which to evaluate and name the sociolinguistic instance under consideration is that : One individual (here Hieronymus Colloredo) adressing another individual (there Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) as if (the former) were in the middle of a crowd of several, addressing them all at once. : (Therefore also a conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis, where one individual presumes to speak ''for'' many.) Also, since the initial example is Reality but only a translation from the German language : ''Mag Er geh'n, Ich brauch' Ihn nicht!'' the notion to be named has been viewed as invariant in considering the alternative : ''May He Leave, I'll miss Him not!'' User:Fwappler, Jan. 5, 16:26 PST. p.s. Alternatively, Google just reminded me to improve the German counterpart to : ''(Dann) Geh' Er doch, I brauch' Ihn nicht!'' which is Here nevertheless commensurate; though perhaps not Bridge all aspects. Please provide some Canon English language examples ... ----------- The following doesn't make sense: Direct applications:
Sociolinguistics instructs derivative sciences and popular pastimes such as the study of Self-reference, and Seinfeld as an instance of self-reference, arguably by Allusion. As for: ''... doesn't make sense ...'' :Would You kindly investigate or suggest what did or what ''ought'' to instruct the (as of this writing) apparently linked articles instead? : Thanks, User:Fwappler, Jan. 9th, 7:09 (PST). :: Your question does not make sense either. I don't understand what you mean when you say "instruct". Neither does anyone else. -- User:Tarquin As for: ''I don't understand what you express when you write "instruct".'' : {Borrowing the confines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopedic Network, I may express my preference that :: [`[Instruction:can be conceived as:Reproducibility|Hangul],] :: [`[Instruction:can be conceived as:Duration|Catherine II of Russia:Nakaz of 1767],] : ''together''.} As for: ''Neither does anyone else.'' : I may not be able to express my preference for this to be an overstatement as readily as you can make this statement itself. : Otherwise your question does not make sense either. Would You prefer to deny the (for lack of a better word) ''linguistic similarity'' between ''encyclopedia'', ''instruction'' (noun), and ''to instruct'' (verb)? Regards, (User:Fwappler 16:45 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)). ::Well, concerning the sentence: :::Would You kindly investigate or suggest what did or what ''ought'' to instruct the (as of this writing) apparently linked articles instead? ::I do not understand why the word "instruct" is preceded by a "what." Books or movies may be instructive, but only people can instruct. Either the use of the word "what," or the use of the word "instruct," is inappropriate. Also, people instruct other people, not things. A person cannot instruct an article (a person can read or write an article, and even read or write an instructive article, but cannot instruct an article). So I too have no idea what this sentence means. Finally, I have no idea what any of this has to do with sociolinguistics -- the issues here seem concerned with semantics and structural linguistics... User:Slrubenstein As for: ''I do not understand why the word "instruct" is preceded by a "what." [...] '' : To express a question. For example, (courtesy Google), given the statement: :: ''... In laying out the opposing position, you should observe the "Principle of Charity"- a sort of golden rule of reason which instructs us to treat all other ...'' (per www.ciesin.org/metadata/TOC/standards.html), : I'd consider the question :: ''What does, or what ought to, instruct us to treat all other [...]?'' : well-posed, and eliciting the answer: ''"Principle of Charity"- a sort of golden rule of reason.'' : Similarly, given: :: ''... by Executive Order 12906, "Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure," which instructs US federal agencies ... (at www.biodiversityassociates.org/ general/enews/en1jun02.html), : I'd consider the question :: ''What does, or what ought to, instruct US federal agencies [...]?'' : well-posed, and eliciting the answer: ''Executive Order 12906 [...]''. : However, having tried to look up questions of the form I meant to ask User:Tarquin, I find that questions of the form :: ''What did, or what ought to, inform ...?'' : appears perhaps more frequently. As for: ''A person cannot instruct an article (a person can read or write an article, and even read or write an instructive article, but cannot instruct an article).'' : Agreed; that's why I was asking about ''What instructs [...]?'' : as in ''Which impersonal principle or fact allowed the links under consideration to persist; rather than ''Who instructs [...]?''. : I had imagined the reply to be understood that, roughly, ''the occurence of the string "Seinfield", in the link labels above as well as in the Seinfeld article (and/or in related files)''... As for: ''Finally, I have no idea what any of this has to do with sociolinguistics --'' : Please review (whether and) how ''Seinfieldism'' arises in the Seinfeld article. AFAIU it does, due to a certain (social?) stratification amongst the viewership of this sitcom. As for: ''the issues here seem concerned with semantics and structural linguistics'' : Possibly. It'd be nice if you could address my initial question on this page; especially if you have at your command scientifically instructive and distinctive aspects of language. Thanks, User:Fwappler 08:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC). == gynocentric == Has anyone bothered to read the male-female sociolinguistic differences in their entirety? If so, do they not sound feeble and narrowminded? There are emotionally and normativelly laden words for every characteristic, distributed on the basis of the stereotypical assumption that women are striving for intimacy, while men born to compete. This is the old Darwinian view of evolution, applied to a petit-bourgeois society which divides the nuclear family into the house labour unit and the provider unit. Look at the biased results it produces. With such results sociolinguistics doesn't even have a claim to science. It's pure reproduction of stereotypes- with the new trend to be gynocentric. It would be one thing to seek to distribute the light between men and women, its another when the males are described as aggresive conversationalists vs. the democratic (hence "good") peaceful women. Bunk!
Sociolinguistics
Linguistics Sociology
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Sociolinguistics:
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
