REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Guth 1970:16 says, ”Language is man’s greatest invention and most precious possession. Without it, trade, government, family life, friendship, religion, and arts would be either impossible or radically different. How we use language, and how well, has much to do with what kind of people we are.” So according to the statements of Guth that we may believe that language is very important for human beings. It also may mean that no human can live without the present of a language. Perrin 1980:243 says, ”Linguistics has been defined as the scientific study of language.” So it means that when someone wants to discuss the aspects of language he or she may not escaped from using linguistics as the science. The interpenetration of language with so many areas of human experience is well reflected in the difficulty of arriving at satisfactory criteria for the demarcation of boundaries between one language and another and one dialect and another and, moreover, between one variety of style and another, hence for the definition of all such terms. Labov 1967 shows for example how in certain respects the assumption of linguistically discrete boundaries between social dialects does not seem to hold for human beings speech. He shows how in this setting variations in the pronunciation of the phonological variables represented by small capitals in such words as car, bad, off, thing, and this, form extensive and unbroken articulatory continua, and are statistically related both to the level of carefulness or casualness in each particular interaction and to measures of socio-economic stratification. The latter, it is important to note, influences peoples choice of language not only in respect of economic, educational and other observable forms of mobility, but also in respect of subjective evaluations of the desirability or correctness of the various pronunciations. People in the same age-group and of the same mobility type are remarkably similar in the way they evaluate the desirability of various pronunciations, far more so than in their actual speech. Evaluations of this sort therefore help the analyst in interpreting or explaining behavior. For example, the close correspondence between lower middle class upward mobility type and upper middle class speech particularly in non-casual relationships is matched by even stronger subjective endorsement of the norms in question on the part of the former than on the part of the latter. Possible criteria for demarcating boundaries among languages and dialects, or indeed for demonstrating the occasional irrelevance of boundaries, are numerous. Those favoured by descriptive linguistics concern various types of structural distance which may themselves yield quite different boundaries: syntactical boundaries may not be identical with lexical boundaries for example. But these are only the most obvious and should be measured against others which include the following: sociolinguistic observations of performance who speaks what language to whom and when: Fishman 1965 assessments of mutual or non-reciprocal intelligibility Wolff 1959 beliefs of language users political or other institutional considerations, attitudes of one sort or another historical or diachronic as well as non- historical or synchronic relationships, and so on. There is probably no simple or single key to the complex incompatibilities found among these Various criteria. But in many cases this proved not to be so. Indications of non-reciprocal intelligibility pointed rather to the play of local economic and power relationships, along with feelings of ethnic self-sufficiency, giving rise to pecking orders of intelligibility. These examples could easily be multiplied, but what is important to realize is that they are not examples of absence of system in language, but rather indications of probably very complex systems which take in more than purely structural relationships. A good deal of light can be thrown on the nature of the problem of identifying factors other than the purely structural which are relevant to the discrimination - both by the linguist and by the language user-of dialects, varieties, and styles of language,-by investi-gating different kinds of code-switching behaviour in which the alternatives are unambiguously distinct languages. In such cases one can be more reasonably sure of what is being switched with what, whereas in the case of dialects, etc., the problem of demarcation is more difficult. The study of language is Linguistics. The part of linguistics that is concerned with the structure of language. It can be divided into several subfield, such as Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, Semantics, Sociolinguistics, and Pragmatics. Aside from language structure, other perspectives on language are represented in specialized or interdisciplinary branches, such as Historical Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, Ethnolinguistics or Anthro-pological Linguistics, Dialectology, Computational Linguistics, Neuro-linguisticsand etc. Sociolinguistics is the study of relation between language and society.Sociolinguistics is concerned with language in social and cultural context, especially how people with different social identities e.g. gender, age, race, ethnicity, class speak and how their speech changes in different situations.Gumperz 1971:223 says that he has observed the study of sociolinguistics as an attempt to find correlations between social structure and linguistic structure and to observe any changes that occur.Chambers 2002:3 says, ‘Sociolinguistics is the study of the social uses of language, and the most productive studies in the four decades of sociolinguistic research which have emanated from determining the social evaluation of linguistic variants. According to the messages above, we can conclude that sociolinguistics is a branch of linguistics which concerned with language and social life. It explains the way language use understood well after connecting it to the situation where, when, and by whom it is played.When someone goes somewhere, he or she needs to learn another language to communicate with the other. As they came back, some of them are getting easier to communicate by using another language that they got from another place than their own language.

1. INTRODUCTION