7 Desember 2011

A.  Background
Any discussion of the relationship between language and society, or of the various functions of language in society, should begin with some attempt to define each of these terms. A society is any group of people who are drawn together for a certain purpose or purposes. Society becomes a very comprehensive view is because of the very different kinds of societies we must consider in the course of the various discussion that follow.  We may attempt an equally comprehensive definition of language; a language is what the member of particular society speaks. Speech in almost any society can take many very different forms, and just what forms we should choose to discuss when we attempt to describe the language of society may prove to be contentious matter. Sometime, a society may be plurilingual; that is, many speakers may use more than one language, however we define language. We should also note our definitions of language and society are not independent; the definition of language includes in it reference to society.
When two or more people communicate with each other in speech, we can call the system of communication that they employ a code. In most cases that code will be something we may also want to call a language. We should also note that two speakers who are bilingual, that is, who have access to two codes, and who for one reason or another shift back and forth between the two language as the converse by code-switching are actually using a third code, one which draws on those two language. The system (or the grammar, to use a well-known technical term) is something that each speaker ‘knows’, but two very important issues for linguistic are just what that knowledge of and how it may best be characterized.
The sociolinguistics of society is about the social importance of language to groups of people, from small sociocultural groups of a few hundred people to entire nations. If everyone in the group spoke exactly the same as everyone else in the group, there would be no such thing as the sociolinguistics of society. Not only do people use language to share their thoughts and feelings with other people, they exploit the subtle and not so subtle aspects of language to reveal and define their social relationship with the people they are talking to, with people who can overhear them, and even with people who are nowhere around.
B.  Problem Statement
In order to describe THE HISTORY OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND OTHER RELATED DICIPLINES, the writer limits the discussion into problems as formulated as follows:
1)      .History of Sociolinguistic especially in the journey of Charles A. Ferguson and Joshua Fishman as the founding-father of Sociolinguistic.
2)      The relationship between sociolinguistics with linguistic, Sociology, Pragmatic, Anthropology, and Psychology.

1.    History of Sociolinguistic
There are six of the founding father of sociolinguistic; William Labov, who pioneered a school devoted to showing the relevance of social determinants of variation for linguistic theory; Basil Bernstein, the British sociologist whose work on class-related ‘codes’ led to a brief flirtation with American sociolinguists; Dell Hymes, whose adaptation of Roman Jakobson’s theory of communication shaped the ethnography of communication and educational linguistics and who molded sociolinguistics by editing several pioneering volumes and the flagship journal Language in Society; John Gumperz, founder of interactional sociolinguistics; and Charles Ferguson and Joshua Fishman. All participated in the many conferences and publications which fashioned sociolinguistics in those years, and each continued to publish for the next 30 years, expanding their own interpretations of the field.
Fishman first taught a course called ‘Sociology of Language’ at the University of Pennsylvania in 1956 and continued to teach it at Yeshiva University. The term ‘sociolinguistics’ was first used by Currie and picked up by Weinreich and in articles in Word which Weinreich edited. The classic paper on diglossia appeared there. At the 1962 LSA Linguistic Institute, Ferguson taught a course with the simple title ‘Sociolinguistics’ and repeated it the following summer and in the 1965 academic year at Georgetown University. In 1964, Fishman had just completed his pioneering study of language loyalty in the USA. Labov had published his Martha’s Vineyard study and was completing the New York dissertation that continues to encourage study of socially-explainable language variation. Gumperz and Hymes were editing the papers from the 1963 American Association of Anthropology meeting, which remains a foundation text. Even without the seminar, research and publication in the field were by then well underway. Bloomington 1964 was a milestone rather than a starting point, but a significant one.
In his introduction to the festschrift for Ferguson’s 65th birthday, Fishman recalls his first contact with Ferguson: ‘It took almost a month for Charles Ferguson and me to realize that we were living next door to each other during the Summer Linguistic Institute of 1964 at Indiana University.’ They had communicated briefly before that; during the summer, both in the seminar that Ferguson chaired ‘primus inter pares’, and with Fishman taking Ferguson’s course, they became ‘neighbors, colleagues, students (each acknowledging the other as teacher) and close friends, roles we have enacted, either repeatedly or continuously …’ In May 1963, Fishman was not on the original list of scholars to be invited to Bloomington, which included Gumperz, Haugen, Immanuel
Wallerstein or Paul Friedrich, Steven E. Deutsch and Dell Hymes. In December, William Labov and William Stewart,both about to finish their degrees, were added; a month later, Fishman was also invited (as were Heinz Kloss and Basil Bernstein, all three considered sociologists rather than linguists). Fishman had not been sure that he would be included – his only relevant publication was an article on the Whorfian hypothesis, although he had earlier published articles on Yiddish bilingualism, pluralism and minorities, and was just finishing his first major which was to set the path for the host of studies of minority language maintenance and loss that now dominate the sociolinguistic research field. He later recalled that he was at Stanford rewriting Fishman when he first heard about the 1964 seminar and was encouraged to apply by Einar Haugen, also a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences. He phoned Ferguson whose article on diglossia he knew; Ferguson ‘seemed a little cool on the phone’ but accepted the application. Ferguson quickly came to appreciate Fishman’s potential contribution: in a letter written in 1965 trying unsuccessfully to persuade Fishman to stay on the Committee of Sociolinguistics, he wrote, ‘Of all the members, you are most probably the only one whose primary interest is in the field of sociolinguistics, and your publications in the field have been the most extensive. You are concerned with both “macro” and “micro” and with relating the two’
Fishman did not know what the seminar was going to be like, but he was willing to put up with a hot uncomfortable summer in Bloomington in order to be with ‘a community of like-minded scholars’. When the seminar began, Fishman found the sociologists – including himself, ‘a refurbished social psychologist’ as he noted – to be in a weak position because they did not know each other and did not have strong interests in common. Only Fishman, Kloss and Lieberson had published or were ready to publish about language. The anthropologists and linguists had met before, most recently at the 1963 AAA meeting and at the May UCLA meeting. There was a major gap between the two groups and, partly because of that, Fishman returned to his earlier preference for calling the field the sociology of language. He complained that social problems were not emphasized in Bloomington, and that only annoyance greeted his reference to ‘the fact that people were willing to kill and be killed for their beloved language was being completely overlooked”. At Bloomington and after, a close personal and academic relationship quickly developed between Ferguson and Fishman. Fishman’s statement about their friendship has been cited: Ferguson respected not just Fishman’s extensive empirical studies but his potential for theory-building:

I tend to be pessimistic about formulating a basic theory of sociolinguistics; possibly I am unduly pessimistic. I would think that if Fishman put his mind to it, he could probably come up with a kind of theory. Of course, it would tend to focus on macro sociolinguistics (sociology of language), like the books he has written on ethnicity and nationalism and so forth …

For Fishman, Ferguson remained his main teacher of linguistics. While their research paths diverged, with Ferguson firmly on the linguistic and Fishman firmly on the sociological side, their early conversations and continuing association had a major influence on the growth and shape of the field.

2.    The Relation of Sociolinguistic with other Discipline
A.       Sociolinguistics with Linguistics
Sociolinguistics is a science that examines the linked by a factor of sociology. Thus, the sociolinguistic not leave linguistics. What is studied in linguistics (the science that examines language as a phenomenon independent) provide a basis for sociolinguistic to show different uses of language associated with social factors. What is assessed in linguistics, covering what is studied De Saussure, the Bloomfieldien (Bloomfield, Charles Fries, and Hocket) and the Neo Bloomfieldien with deep structure and surface, is seen by sociolinguist as a form of primary language when it is associated with the user and the use of language will changes and differences. The study of phonology, morphology, structure sentence, and lexical semantics in linguistics to be used by sociolinguistic reveal the structure of the language used by each group according to said with the context. Therefore, it is not possible to assess a sociolinguist language with no linguistic knowledge based on pure. Sociolinguistic study of language shape diverse as influenced by factors outside of language (social), thus the meaning of an utterance is also determined by factors outside of language. To be able to reveal the form and meaning language is indispensable knowledge on purely linguistic (language structure), study conducted in order not to leave the object language itself.

B.       Sociolinguistic with Sociology
Sociolinguistic view of language as a basis of assessment (see back the relationship between sociolinguistic and linguistic) and looked at the social structure as a determinant variable. Both are seen as gegenseitige gegenseitige einbettung and determination, and the relationship between the two determined by the requirements of humans, the organization of the human mind (in the form external argument), as well as the intrinsic demands of a field of systematic, robust, and effective.
What is contained in sociology, a form of social facts is transferred into the sociolinguistic, so comes the belief that language-related with social strata. Nevertheless, the relationship between sociolinguistic and sociology actually are reciprocal (symbiosis mutualism). The relationship of sociology - sociolinguistic
(1) Advancement of sociological theory such as political groups, mass mobilization, interference between groups used in the sociolinguistic
(2) The methodology in sociology such as questionnaires, interviews, participant observation used also as a method in sociolinguistics;
(3) The terms of sociology as function, Role, and social dimension also used in sociolinguistics;
(4) Social facts in sociology who transferred into the sociolinguistic includes the transfer of functions of language as a whole and to structure of language itself With attention to these social facts, sociolinguistic also consider language situation, who is speaking, where, and so on, because how sociolinguistic also arise because of the help of sociology. Sociolinguistic relations - sociology
(1) sociolinguistic data that give the characteristics of social life, becomes barometer for sociology;
(2) Aspects of language attitudes influence the material and spiritual culture of a community;
(3) The language studied in sociolinguistics is the primary means of developing the sociology. In other words, sociolinguistic sociology assists in classifying the strata social, as demonstrated by Labov in his research on speech [r] in American society in different social levels.

C.       Sociolinguistic with Pragmatic
Pragmatics is the language of science which studies the purpose and effect language associated with the context, or the use of language that are tailored with the subject, purpose, participants, venues and facilities. As sociolinguistics, pragmatics also assumes that the language (speech) is not monotype. Pragmatic view of language as a communication tool whose existence (Both form and meaning) is determined by the speakers and determined and diversity is determined by topic, place, means, and time. These facts utilized by sociolinguistic to explain the varieties of the language or variety of language. Strongly emphasizes pragmatic aspects of communication purposes, such as put forward by Searle in the act he said. Language will be different because existence of different purposes. These things were used by the sociolinguistic stresses due to variations in language (based on) the function of these languages. The pragmatic use of language is also strongly consider the factors interlocutors, namely those involved in the process of communicating and interact. Therefore, the code (to borrow a term sociolinguistic) used were different. In sociolinguistics, aspects of the interlocutors is developed further with social factors or social dialects such as socioeconomic level, the level of education, age, gender, social relations, and so on.
If the narrative "3 X 4 how much? "Will have a different meaning and answers. Pragmatic view, the difference was due to the factors, objectives, and speakers. Sociolinguistic look at it registers. However, both require "Common knowledge" or common ground to come to an understanding.

D.       Sociolinguistic relations and Anthropology
Anthropology is the study of man, especially about the origin, physical shapes of different colors, customs, and beliefs in the past. Anthropological view that the cultural aspects of language contained. With Thus if there are similarities in the language means having close cultural kinship. It also means, in common language in common mark culture, and language used in the process of cultural formation as a mantra, rhymes reverberate, debate, deliberation, and traditional ceremonies. Anthropology discuss language broadly to describe aspects of culture. Sociolinguistic trying to take advantage of the classification society through cultural anthropology and do see it as a factor influencers language. Sociolinguistic re trying to test the linguistic data discovered anthropology. View of life (which is reflected in the behavior) is used as a factor cause variations in language, especially aspects of vocabulary and structure. This seems among others in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Anthropological approach objects naturalistically. Anthropology trying entering the "settings" before it entered the study with observations rapport participatory. This method is utilized by the sociolinguistic order to find data language accurately once found pemengaruhnya factors in detail. Inside there Atropologi principles of development and change. This principle transferred into the sociolinguistic so came the term kronolek, tempolek, and the taboo terms in sociolinguistics. Anthropology also provides the concept about the structure of culture and cultural transformai to sociolinguistics. This was demonstrated by the emergence of the term grandfather (because of the concept and tribute to grandparents as parents who have a nature and position great), and simbok (as parents who can complement and provide perfection or tombok). Culture in anthropology conveyed through language, thereby there must be a communicative abilities. This principle was taken by sociolinguistic. Similarly, cultural knowledge acquired in conjunction with language acquisition, such as greeting, use of language in context. Through this anything can be known how that culture lives in a society full with the values of philosophy that developed in it. Language in use for expressing cultural anthropology. With Thus, what is considered important, it must be highlighted. In a community found a variety of terms, according to the level of culture. In Egypt for example, there are 500 vocabulary for the lions, 200 words for snake, 80 words for honey, and 4644 words for camel. Similarly, in Javanese culture highlight the flavors (up there rumangsa term can be rumangsa lan) has enough many affective vocabulary adjective, such as sadness, difficulty, ngenes, miserable, sad, wedi, crazy,

E.        Sociolinguistic relationship with Psychology
At the time of Chomsky, linguistics began to be associated with.  psychological and viewed as a science is not independent. Furthermore, Chomsky says (1974) that linguistic knowledge is not a stand-alone. Linguistics is part of the psychology in the way of human thinking. Chomsky's view of language as a unity of two elements, namely competence and performance. Competence is an element in the language (deep structure) and place the speakers of the language of psychiatric terms, while competence is visible element of parole. Thus, Chomsky's view that language is not a single symptom. but influenced by psychological factors of native speakers. Chomsky also began to explore the meaning although eventually admitted that the meaning is the most difficult areas in the study of linguistics. What about the structure proposed in Chomsky and the outer structure sociolinguistic as a guideline used by the speech that appear really just a manifestation of psychosis in terms of native speakers. Further sociolinguistic open ourselves to examine the differences in narrative form. The link between competence and performance can be seen from the use of language speakers. The man is said to have competence and good performance when can use different variations of language appropriate to the situation. A person who has both certainly had a good competency, and allows extensive use of code (elaborated code). Conversely, people who competence low, it would appear the code is limited (restricted code). In developmental psychology there is a phase of development. began to cry (Crying aims: hunger, cold, fear), stomach, sitting, crawling, and walking. All of them followed or in line with linguistic development. In sociolinguistic, it was adopted as a variation of language speakers in terms of age, (People studying languages in accordance with the level of development). Therefore also known variations in language teens and seniors. From the point of psychology, men in general have a different psychiatric with women. Therefore, what they tell a well is not the same. Sociolinguistic transfer this concept, thus came the term of language variation based on the genus or sex (see "Language and Gender").

Summing up, in addition to their unmatched organizational contributions to the development of sociolinguistics and the sociology of language, Charles Ferguson and Joshua Fishman have each staked out pioneering claims to major sectors of the study of language in its social context. How important are they to contemporary sociolinguistics? A citation search using Google Scholar shows that Fishman has many more hits than Ferguson, mainly for books (Reversing Language Shift tops the list; among his papers, a 2007 paper on Whorf is the most cited, with over 100 hits). Most of Ferguson’s hits are papers, starting with over 1000 for diglossia, followed by 260 for baby talk, 140 for foreigner talk, and 100 for politeness. Fishman’s topics and methods have perhaps produced more followers, in particular with the political relevance of language loyalty and loss. Many scholars working on these topics are in the field of education, while Ferguson’s followers are more strictly in the narrower field of sociolinguistics. Additionally, the strength of Fishman’s following is shown in the large number of tributes in festschrifts and birthday celebratory conferences. Perhaps this is a mark of his longer publication list; it also reflects the fact that he has continued to develop his ideas and approach, while Ferguson’s strength was in innovative recognition of topics of sociolinguistic relevance. Obviously, there is no point in trying to award grades; each has made (and Fishman continues to make) major contributions to studies of language in society. Without their scholarship and leadership, the field would have been thinner and weaker.
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, and the effects of language use on society. Based on that sentence, we can conclude that sociolinguistic has a big deal with another discipline. Since sociolinguistic studies about the language use in society and its feature, it will create a relation with another field.
Sociolinguistic has a relation with Psychology field if we see a language use through psychological aspect that affect the language user; perception, cognition, attention, emotion, phenomenology, motivation, brain functioning, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. All of those features is also learned in Sociolinguistic.
Sociolinguistic also has a big deal with linguistic. Since sociolinguistic is a branch of linguistic, both of them can’t be separated. Linguistic, as the core of the entire field that learns about language, is the scientific study of human language can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context. Language in its broader context includes evolutionary linguistics, which considers the origins of language; historical linguistics, which explores language change; sociolinguistics, which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures; psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and function of language in the mind; neurolinguistics, which looks at language processing in the brain; language acquisition, how children or adults acquire language; and discourse analysis, which involves the structure of texts and conversations. Since Sociolinguistic is a part of linguistic, it also has a relation with pragmatic; a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. But one thing that make both of them difference is about the scope of study. Sociolinguistic has a larger scope of study than pragmatic. But, they can’t be separated, because the Pragmatic act is always happen is the society. That is why both of them have a close relationship.
Sociolinguistic and anthropology has a close relationship. Both of them like a two side of coin; different but still in one line. Anthropology with its field, Social Anthropology and Linguistic anthropology, took a part in Sociolinguistic field. Social anthropology, studies how contemporary human beings behave in social groups, and Linguistic anthropology, the interdisciplinary study of how language influences social life, which has correlation with the sociolinguistic field in scope of linguistic and society side.
Sociolinguistics and sociology has a big deal toward the society. Sociolinguistic studies the effect of any and all aspects of society on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society. In the other hand, sociology studies the society itself. That is why Sociolinguistic has a big deal with sociology, because from the etymology of the sociolinguistic is formed from two word which is blended; society and linguistic.


0 komentar:

Posting Komentar