Evaluative Essay Week 2
Many linguists have proposed various theories to explain how language can be a product of
ones’ social group, ultimately impacting an individual’s idiolect; a term coined by linguists to
explain our ‘linguistic fingerprint’. Milroy is a theorist that developed the concept of the
‘social networking theory’, focusing on the relationship between individuals and the contact
patterns between group members. On the other hand, other linguistic theorists believe that
everyone belongs to a certain ‘community’ per se. Examples of this include; Jocks, Fan-girls
or people who share similar interests. John Swales, for instance proposed this idea, also
known as; ‘discourse communities’, in which members of a group use language for shared
purposes. This concept would affect the rate of change on one’s sociolect; which is the dialect
of a particular social class. Through the analysis of different social groups, features of their
articulation and influential theorists. The idea that language use varies according to social
groups will be fully discussed and analyzed.
Indeed, it can be argued that language use varies according to social groups, however, social
groups are dependent on one another as they interact to exchange language, allowing
language to evolve and spread. Strong social networks within discourse communities mean
features of that social group would be prevalent within their idiolect. This would mean that
language use within certain social groups would also vary depending on the strength of social
networking ties. It is said that a persons’ language is more likely to be heavily influenced by
their social group as a result of frequent exposure. This is the effect of conformity to social
norms surrounding the individual. A well known study conducted by Leslie Milroy found that
after observing inner-city workers in Northern Ireland; people with a high network density
score have their accents reinforced and are more likely to stick by them for a much longer
time. Milroy concluded that the stronger the social network the greater the use of vernacular
forms. Referring to the question at hand, it can be said that language use can also be seen to
vary within social groups as well as varying amongst one another.
Social groups can be determined as a result of certain demographics; age, gender and social
class. However, features within speech may vary between these demographics. Vulgarisms
and taboo language often saturate teen speech more so than those within an older social
group. This is an actuality as the younger generation are less aware of face threatening acts.
Generally, it is also more common for teenagers to utilize negative speech more frequently.
For instance, lexemes such as ‘nah’ and ‘dunno’, are often used in accordance, creating a
form of multiple negation in speech. A popular use of double negation is seen more
frequently through the contraction, ‘ain’t’, this lexeme can be identified as an ellipsis of an
auxiliary verb and dilutes teen speech. Martinez is linguistic theorist that advocated the idea
that teenagers are more direct in their speech, in comparison to adults; who are more cautious
with their choice of vocabulary. This proves the concept that language use does in fact vary
according to certain social groups. Contrastingly, this could be an overgeneralisation as not
all teenagers speak like this. Vivian de Klerk, who argues that teenagers have the freedom to
speak and challenge linguistic norms. De Klerk suggests that teens ‘seek to establish new
identities’, in hope they they will appear more modern and up to date. With reference to the
debate at hand, teen speech is likely to vary drastically from other social groups, as a result of
lexical evolution and the development of new lexemes from blending to initialisms, to create
new semantic meaning, mainly for advances in technology, for instance; ‘OMG’ and ‘LOL’.
This is evidence to prove the fact that language is in fact varied depending on social groups.
Many linguists have proposed various theories to explain how language can be a product of
ones’ social group, ultimately impacting an individual’s idiolect; a term coined by linguists to
explain our ‘linguistic fingerprint’. Milroy is a theorist that developed the concept of the
‘social networking theory’, focusing on the relationship between individuals and the contact
patterns between group members. On the other hand, other linguistic theorists believe that
everyone belongs to a certain ‘community’ per se. Examples of this include; Jocks, Fan-girls
or people who share similar interests. John Swales, for instance proposed this idea, also
known as; ‘discourse communities’, in which members of a group use language for shared
purposes. This concept would affect the rate of change on one’s sociolect; which is the dialect
of a particular social class. Through the analysis of different social groups, features of their
articulation and influential theorists. The idea that language use varies according to social
groups will be fully discussed and analyzed.
Indeed, it can be argued that language use varies according to social groups, however, social
groups are dependent on one another as they interact to exchange language, allowing
language to evolve and spread. Strong social networks within discourse communities mean
features of that social group would be prevalent within their idiolect. This would mean that
language use within certain social groups would also vary depending on the strength of social
networking ties. It is said that a persons’ language is more likely to be heavily influenced by
their social group as a result of frequent exposure. This is the effect of conformity to social
norms surrounding the individual. A well known study conducted by Leslie Milroy found that
after observing inner-city workers in Northern Ireland; people with a high network density
score have their accents reinforced and are more likely to stick by them for a much longer
time. Milroy concluded that the stronger the social network the greater the use of vernacular
forms. Referring to the question at hand, it can be said that language use can also be seen to
vary within social groups as well as varying amongst one another.
Social groups can be determined as a result of certain demographics; age, gender and social
class. However, features within speech may vary between these demographics. Vulgarisms
and taboo language often saturate teen speech more so than those within an older social
group. This is an actuality as the younger generation are less aware of face threatening acts.
Generally, it is also more common for teenagers to utilize negative speech more frequently.
For instance, lexemes such as ‘nah’ and ‘dunno’, are often used in accordance, creating a
form of multiple negation in speech. A popular use of double negation is seen more
frequently through the contraction, ‘ain’t’, this lexeme can be identified as an ellipsis of an
auxiliary verb and dilutes teen speech. Martinez is linguistic theorist that advocated the idea
that teenagers are more direct in their speech, in comparison to adults; who are more cautious
with their choice of vocabulary. This proves the concept that language use does in fact vary
according to certain social groups. Contrastingly, this could be an overgeneralisation as not
all teenagers speak like this. Vivian de Klerk, who argues that teenagers have the freedom to
speak and challenge linguistic norms. De Klerk suggests that teens ‘seek to establish new
identities’, in hope they they will appear more modern and up to date. With reference to the
debate at hand, teen speech is likely to vary drastically from other social groups, as a result of
lexical evolution and the development of new lexemes from blending to initialisms, to create
new semantic meaning, mainly for advances in technology, for instance; ‘OMG’ and ‘LOL’.
This is evidence to prove the fact that language is in fact varied depending on social groups.
