Human Beings And Water
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 people's 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 nonhistorical 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.
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 people's 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 nonhistorical 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.