Talk:Sociolinguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to theoretical linguistics and theories of language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Sociolinguistics, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

In constructing an article which is viewed as application of the one to be Talked about, the conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis was conceived as

May He go. I have no use for Him. Prince-Archbishop Count 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, Frank W ~@) R, 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 Colloredo) adressing another individual (there 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 Not:original but only a translation from the German

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!

Frank W ~@) R,                      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 conveying all aspects. Please provide some canonical English examples ...

---

The following doesn't make sense:

Direct applications:
Sociolinguistics instructs derivative sciences and popular pastimes such as the study of Seinfeldisms resulting from self-reference, and Seinfieldism arising in 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, Frank W ~@) R, 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. -- Tarquin

As for: I don't understand what you express when you write "instruct".

{Borrowing the confines of WikiProject Encyclopedic Network, I may express my preference that

[`[[[Instruction:can be conceived as]]:not mere ideosynchratic intuition,|but explicit mutual construction, as expressed by Hangul, for example],]

[`[[[Instruction:can be conceived as]]:not readiliy reneggable|within the supposed instructor's lifespan],]

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, (Frank W ~@) R 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... 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 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, Frank W ~@) R 08:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC).

Contents 1 gynocentric 2 Removed pending citation 3 Review quality with peers 4 History of Sociolinguistics

[edit] 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!

Why is sociolinguistics not scientific if it comes up with these results? If you make a scientific analysis of speech patterns, and find these results, then it is as valid as the other way round. If there are, however, studies which do show the opposite, they should be cited. BovineBeast 12:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A large number of these studies were conducted between 1960 and 1980. The social climate of the America and the world, especially towards gender, has changed significantly since this period. Perhaps mentioning that "women have, on average higher verbal intelligence than men" and citing a study conducted almost forty years ago mentioned in a book about checking one's own IQ is not prudent if we are striving towards objectivity. It appears as though the author is grasping at straws to prove that women are more conversationally intelligent than men. I am certain that if such a study were conducted across multiple social classes today, the results would differ. Perhaps the upper-class ladies of the Hamptons display this "conversational politeness" and perhaps the young go-getters on Wall Street are all aggressive, conversational juggernauts, but a study conducted in a middle-class high school would most likely significantly yield different results- the effeminate male theatre students taking turns in conversation while the cheerleaders shout profanities at each other across the football field. Users:Nevah Entitar 12:15, Dec 4, 2005 (EDT)

Yes absolutely, I am not judging the quality of the male/female part about attitudes towards language and communications, but I feel that this article is really not balanced as this gives too much importance to this area. --Khalid hassani 23:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article takes too much time on that subject, and especially since that is the least grounded one. User:Cogito-ergo-sum

[edit] Removed pending citation

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 oriented 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.

[edit] Review quality with peers

look at the section that was titled "ethnic group" this is really poor, ethnic = street youth? which is it ethnic groups or gangs r they the same. U r identifying elements or sub cultures are they always ethnic, or an ethnic minority, urban language is the area of discussion, please review and re-write. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

More works of Labov should be added. Mdoff 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Sociolinguistics

I liked the article but I think in the tecnicalities, a general introduction to the subject has been ignored completely. In fact the article seems incomplete without dedicating a part of it to the history of sociolinguistics; the various approaches in the past, the gradual shift of focus from finding a pure dialect of the rural speaker to the more modern approach proposed by Labov and the ultimate establishment of the modern Sociolinguistics. Anyone..?