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
The fact that sociolinguists differ from generativists regarding methodology and focus is news to neither the sociolinguists nor generativists. But for many sociolinguists,
at least, the fact that they share a model of communication with generativists may come as somewhat of a surprise. The fact that the generative tradition employs the model in an
abridged form has, to some extent, obscured that fact.
It is important to understand that sociolinguists have made no concerted rejection of the code model of communication. While sociolinguists may have argued against the
characterization of language expounded by generativists, they have rarely argued against the concept of language expounded in the code model and by the Saussurean paradigm
generally. In contrast, they generally propagate that view. As quoted previously, Wardhaugh writes: “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 want to call a language”
1986 :1.
Many sociolinguists do not seem to realize that many of the anomalous issues with which they struggle extend from the code model itself more so than from the generative
characterization of language. That is why, as Figueroa notes, their argument may be better understood as contention with elements of the received position that is, the
4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 159
Saussurean paradigm, and not simply with the most recent cynosure of generative linguistics. Because it depends upon the notion of a shared code, the code model cannot
adequately account for variation in a speech community. Because it depends upon the notion of a fixed code, it cannot adequately account for variation in individual usage.
And since it describes communication as simple encoding and decoding events, it does not recognize the relevance of context at all. Of course, each of these issues is of major
concern to sociolinguists.
The code model of communication has the sociolinguist start “with one hand tied behind his back.” To begin with, he is not equipped with an adequate model upon which
to construct his inquiry, and yet the majority of traditional linguistics is defined around that model. As a result, when he explores areas outside the predictions and explanations
afforded by that model, he finds himself having to justify his inquiry and discoveries to the larger community.
Consider, for example, the following quotation from Wardhaugh 1986
.
The competence-performance distinction just mentioned is one that holds intriguing pos- sibilities for work in linguistics, but it is one that has also proved to be most troublesome,
particularly when much of the variety that is so interesting within language is labeled ‘perfor- mance’ and then brushed to one side by those who consider ‘competence’ to be the only valid
concern of linguists. The language we use in everyday living is remarkably varied. In fact, to many investigators it appears that it is that very variety which throws up serious obstacles to
all attempts to demonstrate that each language is at its core, as it were, a homogeneous entity, and that it is possible to write a complete grammar for a language which makes use of
categorical rules,
i.e., rules which specify exactly what is—and therefore what is not— possible in the language. Everywhere we turn we seem to find at least a new wrinkle or a small
inconsistency with regard to any rule one wishes to propose; on too many occasions it is not just a wrinkle or inconsistency but actually a glaring counter-example. When we look closely
at any language, we will discover time and time again that there is considerable internal variation, and that speakers make constant use of the many different possibilities offered to
them. No one speaks the same way all the time, and people constantly exploit the nuances of the languages they speak for a wide variety of purposes. The consequence is a kind of
paradox: while many linguists would like to view language as a homogeneous entity and each speaker of that language as controlling only a single style, so that they can make the strongest
possible theoretical generalizations, in actual fact that language will be seen to exhibit considerable internal variation, and single-style speakers will not be found or, if found, will
appear to be extremely ‘abnormal’ in that respect, if in no other.
Wardhaugh 1986 :5
This quotation comes only four pages after Wardhaugh’s assertion that people employ a code in communicating, and that this code is something we may call a language
1986 :1. Note, as well, that Wardhaugh has directed his argument against generative
linguistics, rather than identifying the core struggle as being with anomalies of the code model itself. Such anomalies will be addressed in some detail in chapter
5 .
4.4.1.4. Functional-Typologists
