UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick

Community Approaches in Sociolinguistics Study: Social Network, Community of Practice, and Random Sample
Udiana Puspa Dewi, MA Sociolinguistics University of Essex 2014 A. Introduction Community approach in sociolinguistics research has been used in many studies both as a complement and as an alternative of traditional categories such as age, sex, social class, etc. Speakers grouping within a community is considered as an important step to do in sociolinguistics research, as it is stated by Eckert (2000:30) because sociolinguists treatment of language focuses on its heterogeneity, they seek a unit of analysis at a level of social aggregation at which it can be said that heterogeneity is organized. Therefore, the community approach is used to provide explanation which correlate language and those categories. Community approach proposes a framework to examine the specifics of local practice and local conditions, and which are sensitive to the local social categories and locally contracted ties with which speakers operate in their everyday lives (Milroy and Gordon, 2003:116). The community approach is used to observe the position of individual speaker within a community. Eckert (1989: 246) argues that in using community approach, sociolinguists focus more and more on the relation of language use to the everyday practice that constitutes speakers' class-based social participation and identity in the community. There are several ways to observe linguistics variation and change based on the community approach, among of them is social network, community of practice, and random sampling. In this paper, I will define how each framework are applied in sociolinguistics research so that we can see how are they contrasted. B. Social Network One of most influential study using social network approach is Belfast Study by Lesley Milroy (1980). In this study Milroy observed the social background of the network to

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick find out the relation of network tightness and the maintenance of the vernacular. The findings of the study shows that the closer an individuals network ties are with his local community, the closer his language approximates to localize vernacular forms (Milroy, 1980: 175). From the finding, it can be see that in social network, language change is observed through the way an individual speaker related to the community. The relation of individual and the community will show the strength of social network of that community. From some researches, it can be seen how social network are used as the tool to find the linguistics behavior of the member of a community. In the Belfast Study, Milroy did not considered social stratification in observing the community. He observed three groups of speaker who belong to the same social class in three areas in Belfast and measure the different use of vernacular by men and women in each group. The working-class speakers became the main focus of the Belfast study. Same grouping was done by Cheshire (1982) where she divided the speakers based on their social pattern of friendship group. Cheshire examined the relationship of friendship grouping with ethnical difference in speaking. All of the speakers have the same social class background. They belong to working class-society. In another study by Eckret (1988) in Detroit school, the speakers are also divided based on the social network they belong to. She observed the adolescents who belong to two social networks, Jocks and Burnouts. In this research Eckert found that somehow social network and social class has a correlation. In the study, Eckert found, the loose correlation between the parents social class and the adolescents affiliation. Though Jocks tended to come from middle class background and Burnouts from working class backgrounds, there were numerous cross-over (Chamber, 1999: 70). The Application of Social Network From the researches above, the application of social network as a social network approaches will be more effective if it is combined with some traditional grouping. Such as what was done by Milroy (1980), Cheshire (1982), and Eckret (1988) where the social network used as a tool to interpret the data that they got based on more abstract categories such as, geographical, sex, and social class grouping. The idea of social network is focused on how the specific speakers tied to other members of the community, and examines how these ties affect speakers linguistic usage. Thus, this framework is a useful not only to

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick correlate the language behavior with the social factors, but also to use the social factors to explain the behavior. Social network can be used as the complement of the social class categorization or as the alternative categorization; it depends on the objective of the research. I think, the application of social network framework will be less effective when it is used to observe the community which has loose network ties. Because, based on previous research, most of them are done within a community with clear social pattern. When the research done in the inner city of which the members of the neighborhood do not really know each other, the researcher will find difficulty in finding how the pattern of speakers language behavior is affected by the network. It is because the focus in this framework is network membership and its relation to language use and everyday practice that construct speakers' class-based social participation and identity in the community (Labov, 1972; Milroy, 1980). The Data Needed from the Participant As it is stated by Milroy (2001: 550), the key component of the social network model is the measurement of network strength. The network strength can be observed through the density and the multiplexity of a network. Thus, to see the social network strength, the participants, who are the member of certain network, should answer the social network index which is made by the researcher. The score of the social network index will show how close and individual related to his/her community. The social network index is the criteria made by the researcher by considering the condition of the community, for example the social change and historical change of the community. The higher score produced by the participants, the higher their relation with their community which implies the density and multiplexity of that community. The index could be about whether they go to the same work place with someone from the community and whether they do voluntary activity for the community, etc. The score of social network strength is important because in social network, one thing that defines social network strength is the voluntary association of its members. Social network is something which is constructed partly by its member consciousness.

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick Theoretical Implication of Social Network in understanding a Community of Speech The important implication that is created by social network in understanding a speech community is that social network provides a way to understand a speech community through the uniqueness of each individuals life experience and contacts Guy (1988:54). Milroy and Milroy (1985) defined social network as a norm-enforcement mechanism through standardization within a speech community. In tight network, the linguistics change is rarely found because of the pressure of the standardization, but in loose network, the linguistics change is more found more frequently as the effect of less standardization pressure within a network. Therefore, by observing the social network tightness, a researcher will find out the pattern of linguistics change within a speech community. Aspects of Language Change and Variation As it is stated in the beginning, that this framework focuses on how the relation of individual and their community can create language change and variation. Some researchers has used social network approach to explain various aspects of speakers social identity to observe language change and variation in wider scope; such as language change associated with speakers gender, geography, ethnicity, socioeconomic, and age (Milroy, 1980; Cheshire, 1982; Eckert, 1988). From the findings of previous studies related to social network, this framework is best used for observing language variation and change based on geographical aspect. It is because the pattern of speakers network will be easily observed when they inhabit an area as a cluster, as it is done by Milroy (1980) in Belfast Study. C. Community of Practice Community of Practice is another approach that can be used to define linguistics behavior of individual based on their membership in a community. Community of Practice is considered to have smaller domain than social network, since the members of community of practice have closer relation than those in social network. In social network, one member do not need necessarily know each other very well, but in community of practice, one member should well-related and know each other well. Meyerhoff (2002: 530) states that one goal of analyzing variation in community of practice framework is to better understand the social meaning of language.

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick The different between community of practice and social network is well described by Casetellano (1996) in Meyerhoff (2002: 529), where group of woman who belong to the same social network in plumbing and carpentry trade can be defined as one community of practice. They were divided into two group of community of practice, the trainee women and the trainer women, because they performed different linguistics behavior. They are divided because these two groups did not share common practice, which then affected on their language use. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992: 464) defined community of practice as an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations in short practices emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor. Therefore, in using this framework, language is seen as a form of practice. Basically, in community of practice framework, analysis of variable is focused on role of language use and linguistic variation as the pre-eminently social practice and language as the way speakers construct, maintain, or contest the boundaries of social categories (Meyerhoff, 2002). The Application of Community of Practice Wenger (1998: 73) there are several things that should exist within a community to be defined as community of practice. The community of practice approach can only be applied within a community which has: 1. Mutual engagement, where the members of community of practice should share the same practice and get together frequently. 2. Negotiated enterprise, that the members of community of practice get together for some purpose and this purpose is defined through their pursuit of it (Meyerhoff, 2002:528) 3. Shared repertoire, it is about how different practices in a community creates joint resources for meaning as a result of negotiation, in linguistic resource in the form of special terms and unique linguistic routines within the community (Wenger 1998:85, Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999: 176)

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick The Data Needed from the Participant Meyerhoff (2002: 531-534) points out four features of community of practice that should be examined from the participant: a. Relationship between an individuals multiplicity of identities What kind of role an individual plays within a community of practice which can reflect their personal and community history and goal through a practice. b. Boundaries How members of community of practice strive to create boundaries to reveal how they can be differentiated from other community. c. Basis for defining membership The prominent characteristics of an participant which are gained as a result of evaluations of norms within a group as a definition of membership of that specific group. d. Members shared goal Meyerhoff (2002: 533) explained members shared goal is about how participants in a community of practice are engaged in the satisfaction of some jointly negotiated enterprise Theoretical Implication of CofP in understanding a Community of Speech Schilling-Estes (2007: 165) points out that community of practice framework has important contribution in understanding a speech community because the focus of community of practice is not only on patterns of interaction within a community, but also on why people come together as a community in the first place. It also observes what practices they engage in and how these practices shape, and are shaped by, their linguistic usages. Therefore, the theoretical implication of community of practice, as it is stated by Eckert (2000:35) is the focus it affords on the mutually constitutive nature of the individual, group, activity and meaning. The community of practice is also applicable in observing more global communities related to academic fields, religions or professions (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1999).

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick From the statements, it can be conclude that community of practice is an attempt to understanding a speech community as a general object by observing the particular scope or the micro level of that community. Aspects of Language Change and Variation The community of practice approach will be fit to observe the language variation and change that happens as a result of identity construction within a society. In using community of practice framework to observe language variation and change, we should see that the meanings associated with variants at the most local level have relation to a larger social patterns. As it is stated by Meyerhoff (2002: 534) that linguistics style is part of parcel of speakers work to construct a social identity (or identities), which is meaningful to themselves and to others. Thus, as it is said by Eckert (2000:4), that community of practice is fit to see the aspect of language change based on the behavioral variants as an effect of its dependency to social pattern and practices. But she also point out that other categories such as gender, class, ethnicity, region also have something to do with language change and variation. It is summarized by Meyerhoff (2002: 534) that macro-level categories like social class emerge, are sometimes contested and sometimes maintained through the action of individual. D. Random Sampling Another method of defining observing a language use within a community is random sampling. In using random sampling, the most important principle that needs to be remembered is that everyone within a population has a chance to be selected as a sample. Schilling-Estes (2007:168) explains that In many social sciences, researchers employ random sampling, in which, as the name suggests, study participants are chosen randomly (usually by computer) from a comprehensive list of community members, for example a telephone directory or electoral register. Llamas (2007: 13) argues that, Random samples are seldom used in sociolinguistic studies, as achieving true representativeness of a population, which is the aim of random sampling techniques, is rarely possible and can generate so much data as to make the studypractically unmanageable. But, there is one of the most famous sociolinguistics

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick researches by Labov which proves that random sampling is useful for sociolinguistic studies. Labovs used random sampling in observing the accent of the Lower East Side of New York (Labov 1966). In this study, Labov recorded some structured interviews with a random sample of speakers with different backgrounds to observe the informal speech and language styles of the speakers. From this research, Labov observed language change in progress through the comparison of the variable uses of different accent forms of the citys population. Later on, this research becomes influential and is used as the basis of variationism. It is a proof that random sampling can be used to observe language change and variation within a community. The Application of Random Sampling Random sampling in sociolinguistics research will be suitable in observing speech community which has a large number of population, where the area is dominated with complex speech community pattern, as in the case of Lower East Side of New York city study by Labov. The participant selection in random sampling is random, which means that this technique does not differentiate between native speakers of the dialect (or lan guage) and non-native speakers, local people and non-local people, willing participants and nonwilling participants (Llamas 2007: 13). Therefore, in studying a speech community, there are no boundaries applying this random sampling technique. This sampling technique can be used in any community without specific criteria. The Data Needed from the Participant (Llamas 2007: 13) stated that a sample frame is usually used to select the participant. This sample framing usually done based on electoral register or a telephone directory where everyone in the list has equal possibility to be chosen. The important thing that needed from the participant in using this random sampling framework is representativeness. It is important to make sure that the random selection of participant somehow can represent the population as a whole. Labov, in his New York study, make a stratified random sampling, where he made stratification based on the sample that he collected randomly to maintain its representativeness to the population.

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick Here, the problem of data from participant of random sampling in sociolinguistics research reveals. The representativeness of a sample in random sampling is considered as a difficult thing to be measured. Chamber (1999: 41) stated that sociolinguists have generally chosen subjects on the basis of predetermined social characteristic. While in random sampling, the stratification of the subject is done after the sample collected. Theoretical Implication of Random Sample in understanding a Community of Speech Based on Labov finding on the Lower East Side of New York study (1966), it can be seen that random sampling provides a good way in understanding the combination and different style used by individuals within a community of speech. In this study, Labov infer language change in progress, by comparing the variable uses of different accent forms across different subsections of the citys population (Britain and Matsumoto, 2005: 2). It means that random sampling can be used to find the composition and combination of speakers that exists within a community of speech. Aspects of Language Change and Variation As in random sampling, the participant selected for the observation is not classified before, the best aspect of language change and variation to be observed using this framework is stylistic variation. It was demonstrated by Labov (1966), that random sampling played a good role in observing the different styles produces by the sample. The different styles used by the random participants, later on, can be used as a classification to observe the variation and the change of language variation within a speech community. E. Conclusion Based on the explanation of the three approaches in observing language and variation within a speech community above, each framework has its own way which can be used by sociolinguists. The use of social network will be more suitable to observe a community where the social stratification is not the problem. It means that social network framework is used to observe a community of speech which belongs to the same social class because the main focus in this framework is the relation of the speakers within a community.

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick The community of practice framework will be best to be used in observing the uniqueness of language use to express their group identity. Therefore, community of practice has smaller domain than social network because it defined a community more specifically based on the mutual engagement, shared practice and repertoire. The similarity of social network and community of practice is that both of frameworks focus on the construction of memberships within a speech community. Random sampling is seen to be most unsuitable framework to observe speech community. As it is stated by Schilling-Estes (2007:168) sociolinguists are interested in the relation between patterns of language variation and particular social characteristics (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, membership in locally important social groups). There is no guarantee that a truly random sample will include members of every group of interest, or that each group will be represented equally. But, random sampling will be suitable in observing large complex population which contains of multiple speech communities. By using random sampling, the pattern and difference occur in the population can be used to formulate the pattern of speech communities exist in the population.

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick References Britain, D. and Matsumoto, K. 2005. Language, communities, network, and practice. Clinical Sociolinguistics, edited by M.J. Ball. Oxford: John Wiley &Son Inc. Chamber, J.K. 1999. Sociolinguistics Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Cheshire, J. 1982. Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, P. 1989. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1: p. 24568. Eckert, P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Eckert, P. 1988. Adolescent social structure and the spread of linguistic change. Language in Society 17: p.183-207 Eckert, P., and McConell-Ginet, S. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: p. 461490. Guy, G. 1988. Language and social class. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey IV: Language: The Socio-Cultural Context, edited by Frederick J. Newmeyer. Cambridge University Press. p. 37-63 Holmes & Meyerhoff. 1999. The community of practice: theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 173-183 Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov,W. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City.Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Llamas, C. 2007. Field methods. The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics, edited by C. Llamas, L. Mullany, P. Stockwell. London: Routledge. p. 12-18 Meyerhoff, M. 2002. Communities of practice. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, edited by J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes. Malden, MA: Blackwell. p. 526-548 Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21, p. 33984. Milroy, L. 2001. Social networks. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, edited by J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-Estes. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 54972

UP:12/01/2014-14:43:59 WM:12/01/2014-14:44:01 M:LG532-7-AU A:13a1 R:1305041 C:0356C48DDAECD4FC5D2CC47FAE43AC3E3460C217

LG532 Sociolinguistics I: Variationist Theory Prof. Peter L. Patrick Milroy, L. 1980. Language and social networks. Language in Society. Oxford: Blackwell Milroy, L. and Matthew G. 2003. Sociolinguistics Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell Schilling-Estes, N. 2007. Sociolinguistic fieldwork. Sociolinguistic Variation: Theories, methods and applications, edited by R. Bayley and C. Luca. Cambridge University Press. p. 165189 Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.