Correlation of directions and methods of sociolinguistic research
The above methods of information collection are used differently in different directions of sociolinguistic research, of which we spoke in Ch. 4. The method of included observation is indispensable in the solution of many problems of microsociolinguistics and, on the contrary, is ineffective for achieving reliable macrosociolinguistic results-here one can not do without mass surveys. Observation and questioning tend to synchronic sociolinguistics, the analysis of written sources - to diachronic. However, in whatever direction the sociolinguist has been working, he seeks to combine, as far as possible, various methodological methods for achieving the optimal result.
Researchers dealing with diachronic problems are in a difficult situation: ideally they could rely on a complex of different sociolinguistic works, but diachronic studies in sociolinguistics began relatively recently and are not always comparable. In this regard, in sociolinguistics, synchronic studies continue to prevail; the study of the connections and dependencies between the actual, occurring before our eyes linguistic and social processes. Since it is on the synchronous material that the methodical methods of research are mainly developed and refined, mainly about them, and it was discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this chapter.
Let us now dwell on the methodological peculiarities of diachronic sociolinguistics. The actual diachronic methods include comparative temporal studies. Sociologists divide them into panel and trend.
In panel (or longitudinal) studies with a certain time interval, the same objects are studied; they give the most accurate data on the dynamics of processes. This method is more suitable for microsociolinguistic works, since at a time break it is much easier to work with a limited population than to repeatedly return to the sample previously used. But in any
In the case of potential subjects, they can change their place of residence, refuse repeated surveys, or lose their representativeness in a sample survey because they are affected by the study itself.A somewhat greater application in sociolinguistics is finding trend studies, when two different but time-consuming surveys examine different individuals who have identical sets of social characteristics. Divided stages of panel and trend studies have no specific features.
So, the methodical arsenal of diachronic sociolinguistics is limited in comparison with that of sociolinguistics synchronic. The diachronicist can not really observe the speech behavior of people. We can not hear what our ancestors, who lived in the last century or earlier, said, and, let's say, the method of oral interview can not be applied even to informants and closer to the present day.
However, with the invention of the tape recorder, with the development of sound recording technology, there is the possibility of simultaneous observations of the speech of the same native speakers. The difficulty of such observations is obvious. As the language changes slowly, one or other changes can be noticed in it only on sufficiently significant time intervals - not less than two or three decades (and for some linguistic changes - for example, in grammar - and for much larger ones). In conditions of high social mobility, which is characteristic in the XX century. for the population of most countries, the stable position of any group of speakers of a particular territory and in this or that social hierarchy for decades is extremely rare. And yet (at least theoretically), diachronic sociolinguistics is able to obtain by observation data characterizing the speech of the same groups that speak at different stages in the existence of these groups in the structure of a given society.
More accessible to direct observation is the speech of different generations of people forming this or that linguistic community. Comparing the speech of the elderly and young people will give some idea of the movement of the language system in time.
The method of comparing data characterizing the use of the same language units by different generations of a particular language community has long been used in dialectology. And the experience of dialectologists did not fail to take advantage of sociolinguists. For example, in the work of U. Labov mentioned above, the so-called centralization of diphthong/ay/serves as an illustration in describing the mechanism of linguistic changes. The most elderly informants in 1963 belonged to the same social group as TC who were surveyed during the preparation of the New England linguistic atlas in 1933, but then the average centralization index of diphthong/a/was 0.06, and in 1961 at the very "archaic" 92-year-old informant, he was 0.1 (Labov, 1975, p. 209). As a result, Labov revealed not only an intergenerational phonetic shift, but also cottages a convincing confirmation of the phonetic change in individual individuals over 30 years. This is one of the few examples of trend research in sociolinguistics. In New York, U. Labov had to be satisfied with the synchronous intergenerational study, because there, he points out, "the Atlas informants were not chosen sufficiently systematically that these data could be compared with our data in 1963." (Labov, 1975, p. 213).
In works devoted to the replacement of the old-Moscow pronunciation norm with new phonetic samples, data relating to the older generation of Muscovites and representatives of younger generations were also compared, on the basis of which conclusions were made about changes in the speech realization of a number of phonemes and phonemic combinations.
In both of these examples, we are talking about relatively short periods of time - several decades. If socially conditioned changes in the language are studied in longer segments of its evolution, the analysis of written sources becomes the main accessible method. This tried and tested path, which linguistics follows from its very beginnings to the present day, has led to significant results in the field of historical grammar and lexicology. But is it possible, according to written sources, to establish, as our ancestors used to say, how they pronounced certain sounds and sound combinations? It has long been well known that in such languages as United States, English, French, the letter does not always accurately convey the pronouncing form of the word. Therefore, if we analyze the texts of the past in order to clarify the features of the spoken speech reflected in them, we must do this with great care, observing certain rules of such analysis.
This was done in the book "History of United States literary pronunciation of the XVIII-XX centuries." MV Panov (Panov, 1990). The texts he attracts for research - verses (rhymes and rhythms in rhymes - important indicators of pronunciation), dramatic works, testimonies of contemporaries about this or that manner of talking, business and personal letters, household notes, etc. - studied it on a broad cultural-historical and social background. This allowed the author not only to reconstruct in detail the concrete history of United States literary pronunciation, revealing the internal, actually linguistic, and external, social causes of the evolution of the phonetic system, but also to give a gallery of phonetic portraits of the most outstanding cultural figures in terms of their linguistic qualities, politicians, writers, artists, scientists. In this gallery portraits of figures of the XVIII century. - for example, Peter the Great or Lomonosov - are also convex and tangible (but the totality of their phonetic features), as well as portraits of our contemporaries, for example, AA Voznesensky or AA Reformatsky. M.V. Panov proved: and written sources can be reliable evidence of changes in oral, sounding speech.
Studying the texts of the past, taking into account the social conditions in which these texts were created, the researchers try to reconstruct the picture of the past linguistic life of society, reconstruct it.
The method of reconstruction has long been known in comparative-historical linguistics, in studies on etymology. In diachronic sociolinguistics, the object of its application most often becomes the functional paradigm of language, i.e. the totality of different forms of its existence at one or another stage of evolution. Studying the functional paradigm of a particular language, the researcher takes into account "1) information about the historical and cultural-historical situation of a particular period (extralinguistic data); 2) judgments of contemporaries about the language of their epoch (indirect linguistic data); 3) the totality of written records available for this period, including information on the creation, designation and actual use of different types of texts (direct linguistic data in combination with indirect ones) (Semenyuk, 1985, pp. 158).At the same time, reasonable considerations are expressed about the limited possibilities of the reconstruction method: "The reconstruction of the functional paradigm of language is always the central link in the description of the language situation, which is generally recreated in a broad cultural and historical context. At the same time, it is probably possible to reconstruct only the main types of functional paradigms represented in different historical and social situations: individual details in the ratio of different functional strata and their detailed structural characteristics more often remain unavailable to the researcher (Semenyuk, 1985, p. 168).
With respect to such a state of language and society, which is not very far from their present state, the method of comparative analysis of different synchronous sections is effective. This analysis allows us to identify innovations that have emerged in the language in the course of its development, and the trends of linguistic changes, the causes of which can be both internal and external social incentives for language evolution. The condition for the most successful application of the method of comparing synchronous slices is the presence of texts in the given language relating to each of the slices, and the corresponding linguistic descriptions of both the texts themselves and the language situations in which they were created.
An example of a consistent description of different synchronous slices that characterize the state of the Japanese language at different stages of its evolution in the 20th century can be the mass survey conducted by Japanese linguists speaking in Japanese in 1950 and 1971-1972. When comparing two synchronous slices in Japanese dialects were
changes are found in their phonological and partly lexical systems (with relative stability of morphology and acceptance), and a conclusion is made about the evolution of a pure dialect to a semi-dialect, which combines features of dialectal morphology and accentuation with literary phonetics and dialectal literary vocabulary (Alpatov , 1985, pp. 87-88).
So, in the methodology and methodology of language research from the perspective of diachronic sociolinguistics, much is borrowed from other directions of linguistics. First, it means the organic connection of diachronic sociolinguistics with other linguistic disciplines, primarily historical disciplines, and secondly, testifies to the youth of this branch of science: own methods and methods of research have yet to be worked out.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay