156 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
4. Expression level—graphemic, phonemic, prosodic, and kinesic 5. Physical phenomena—hand movements, auditory perception, articulatory
movements, visual, tactile perception She also lists a sixth concern, the transmission channel, although this is not incorporated
into a stratal level as are the other five Fleming 1990
:3, 27, also see Edmondson and
Burquest 1998 :112.
The result of this characterization is a speech chain version of the code model see again figure
3.7 . As Fleming describes it, several different kinds of organizational struc-
tures “form a connected network when woven together to encode a communication act” Fleming 1988
:2.
4.4.1.3. Sociolinguists
Considering the contrasts sociolinguistics presents when compared to formal approaches to language, many might suspect that sociolinguists avoid use of the code
model. In fact, sociolinguists often do employ the code model. The relationship socio- linguistics bears to the code model is, however, somewhat complex. That relationship can
be described as involving two major issues:
1. Struggling with disciplinary rules proposed by siblings in the Saussurean paradigm
2. Struggling with anomalies supported by the model itself
4.4.1.3.1. Struggling with rules
One cannot read far in sociolinguistic literature without contacting examples of sociolinguists defining their subdiscipline via negative definition. That is, they first
describe the dominant view regarding language, and often the generative view in particular, and then use that as a basis for describing how sociolinguistics is different.
Having been invented and developed during the same era as generative linguistics, sociolinguistics has been overshadowed by the relative attention given to its generative
sibling in the Saussurean paradigm. The attention itself probably would not be problem- atic for sociolinguists; rather, the rivalry concerns particular rules proposed by leading
linguists of the generative tradition. As discussed in section
4.4.1 , Chomsky
1965 and
Chomsky and Halle 1968
reduced and abridged the code model of communication, proposing in the process several rules for how the code model should guide investigation.
Many other linguists have shared the general approach of idealization and abstraction, even if they do not fit within the generative tradition.
Fasold 1986
serves as an example of such an negative definition. He characterizes linguistic analysis as being of three types and then unites two and describes the
sociolinguistic position as opposed to their shared position. Figueroa summarizes that characterization as follows:
4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 157
Fasold 1986 has noted that there are three kinds of linguistic analyses based on, one, a biological definition where the concern is with the “language acquisition device” or the
“language faculty” in the brain Chomsky 1986
; two, a social definition of language where the concern is with language users and language in “context” see, e.g.
Schiffrin 1987 ; and
three, a platonic definition of language where the concern is not with mental states, knowledge or social action but abstract objects and mathematical principles
Katz 1981 . Fasold notes,
however, that in practice the first and third types of linguistic analyses, despite their theo- retical differences, end up being the same …. A primary reason why the two are the same in
practice is because their object of study is the same: sentences whether abstract without ref- erence to psychology or idealized but psychologically real, and that why they differ or
should differ from the contextual approach, is that this approach is concerned with utterance, which by its very nature is contextualized.
Figueroa 1994 :5
Figueroa employs a similar characterization, but she also addresses the broader historical tradition of which generative linguistics is simply the contemporary
instantiation. As has been discussed in section 4.3
of the present study, Figueroa identifies the Saussurean paradigm of linguistics, calling it “received linguistics.” She
recognizes that, as contrasted to received linguistics, sociolinguistics is working the margins. She writes: “Received linguistics, then, is the normal science assumptions about
the object of linguistic enquiry, the core values of linguistics, in relation to which sociolinguistics is usually positioned on the periphery”
Figueroa 1994 :10.
Figueroa points out that definitions of sociolinguistics all “emphasize variation and diversity; the socio-cultural nature of language; and that the focus of sociolinguistics
should be on parolelanguage use, interaction and meaning” 1994
:2. Placed in contrast to the dominant view which emphasizes grammatical studies, such definitions are always
the other, the non-dominant perspective, perpetually justifying their existence. This pattern is played out throughout Figueroa’s survey as she repeatedly defines
sociolinguistics approaches via contrasts with “received linguistics.”
In considering this rejection of rules, it is important to understand that sociolinguists have not rejected the code model itself. For example, consider the following quotation
from John Gumperz, wherein he clearly makes an appeal to the code model of commu- nication, also doing so in the context of discussing the rules defined by the dominant
perspective.
Interpretation always depends on information conveyed through multiple levels or channels of signalling and involves inferences based on linguistic features that from the perspective of
texts based analysis count as marginal or semantically insignificant. Gumperz 1982
:207
The point here is that sociolinguistics is a branch of the Saussurean tradition. As such, the Saussurean paradigm has passed on to sociolinguistics a theory of communi-
cation influenced by that paradigm’s contemporary characterization of communication, that is, the code model of communication and the axioms of code model linguistics as
described in section
3.4 . Sociolinguists generally accept that inheritance. In general, the
only axiom with which they argue is that defining the linguists’ problem: “The linguists’ problem lies primarily in defining the code and secondarily in defining the processes
of transmission and reception.” Even in that the rejection is only partial. They don’t
158 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
typically reject the emphasis on code or transmission and reception processes. They simply differ with their generativist colleagues regarding methodology and focus of
study. That is, they address the processes of transmission and reception in similar manner, but they insist that the code is social and therefore must be studied in social
context. While this interest in actual use and context draws sociolinguists’ attention toward parole, the system nevertheless remains their focus of study. Accordingly, their
interest may, in fact, be better characterized as an interest in langue. Joseph characterizes the problem in a productive way:
In terms of Saussurean traditions, sociolinguistics pursues the Saussurean view of the social nature of langue, while Chomskyan generative linguistics to which sociolinguistics has
stood in irreconcilable contrast for a generation pursues the Saussurean view of the mental and abstract nature of langue. An eventual reconciliation of this split—to which a deeper
understanding of Saussure’s thought may provide a clue—would certainly constitute a major breakthrough in the understanding of language.
Joseph 1994 :3666
While this author is not so presumptuous as to suggest that this study is the simple key to reconciling sociolinguistic and generative approaches, it is not unreasonable to
suggest that at least part of this conflict between the two approaches stems from differing responses to the code model of communication. As discussed, generative linguistics re-
duces the code model in order to focus on grammar. Sociolinguistics, in contrast, keeps the expanded form of the model, all the while wrestling with the anomalies it entails for
sociolinguistic study. One may wonder whether this contrast would have developed without the code model as a foundation, and similarly, whether a different model of
communication could bring about resolution.
4.4.1.3.2. Struggling with anomalies
