The researcher's goal in doing this study is to examine and analyze the social linguistic impacts surrounding two short stories namely: When the World Screamed by Arthur Conan Doyle and The Man that Corrupted Hadley burg by Mark Twain. According to the sociolinguistics viewpoint, the two well-known stories will be the primary focus of this topic. According to the argument, linguistics may identify a speaker's social background by their unique speech patterns and habits. The researcher thinks it would be fascinating to compare the two writings in light of the social disparities between the two writers because the two authors come from different locations and cultural backgrounds. The goal of the method is to determine the relationship between the social background of a writer's characters and their use of language.
The aim of the current study is to identify variations within a single speech community. To do this, it surveys the work of renowned sociolinguists like William Labov and John Gumberz who have studied the traditions of writing argumentative texts about variations within a single speech community. It then conducts a thorough discourse analysis on a selection of sociolinguistic texts from two stories.
Abstract : The researcher's goal in doing this study is to examine and analyze the social linguistic impacts surrounding two short stories namely: When the World Screamed by Arthur Conan Doyle and The Man that Corrupted Hadley burg by Mark Twain. According to the sociolinguistics viewpoint, the two well-known stories will be the primary focus of this topic. According to the argument, linguistics may identify a speaker's social background by their unique speech patterns and habits. The researcher thinks it would be fascinating to compare the two writings in light of the social disparities between the two writers because the two authors come from different locations and cultural backgrounds. The goal of the method is to determine the relationship between the social background of a writer's characters and their use of language.
The aim of the current study is to identify variations within a single speech community. To do this, it surveys the work of renowned sociolinguists like William Labov and John Gumberz who have studied the traditions of writing argumentative texts about variations within a single speech community. It then conducts a thorough discourse analysis on a selection of sociolinguistic texts from two stories.
Key words: Sociolinguistics, sociolinguistic features, speech community,
place, relationships and topic.
1- Introduction
The bulk of research on the relationship between language and society has relied on some form of sociolinguistic investigation, and an amazing portion of this research has included conversational analysis. It contributes in some ways to the features that Stubbs (1983) sought to make easy to understand.
Sociolinguistics will need to study how conversations take place, including how they are structured, what makes them coherent and understandable, how topics are introduced and changed, how interruptions are made, how questions are asked, how answers are given, or how they are avoided, and generally how the conversational flow is preserved or broken. Stubbs expands on this idea, arguing that sociolinguistics calls for correlational studies that link linguistic traits to broad socioeconomic variables as well as general ethnographic accounts of cultural norms of speech behavior in a variety of contexts and cultures. (ibid).
2. Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics is a branch of linguistics that focuses on the interaction between social behavior and linguistic activity. Language variation, language characteristics, reviewing language in social and cultural context, connecting linguistic factors, social and cultural factors, the impact of social variables on the use of language, as well as reviewing the social functions and use of language in society, are the main topics that sociolinguistics studies and discusses (Soeparno, 2002: 25).
Despite the divergent perspectives on sociolinguistics, some sociolinguists come to the conclusion that the main objective of the discipline is to relate linguistic variation as the dependent variable to independent variables such as linguistic environment, social categories, or style (Chambers, 1995: 17). Additionally, the majority of sociolinguists are interested in how and why people use language. Additionally, they are concerned with documenting the various forms of language, including their appearance and organizational structure. Additionally, those sociolinguists work to provide answers to queries like: who makes use of those various forms or language varieties? Who do they use them with? Are they familiar with their decision? Why are certain languages better than others? Exists a connection between the shifting forms in the speaker community? What kind of social information do we identify with various language variants or its forms? How much control do we have over the words we use? (Meyerhoff, 2006: 2).
In its core, sociolinguistics is a descriptive science. It is described by Crystal (1987: 281) as a subfield of linguistics that investigates all facets of the interaction between language and society. In addition, he says that sociolinguistics researches topics like social attitudes toward language, patterns and requirements of national language use, social varieties and levels of language, the social underpinnings of multilingualism, and more (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972; Trudgill, 1984, Trudgill, 2000,Gumperz, 2008).
According to Chomsky, sociolinguistics has nothing to do with "competence" and only ever concerns with performance. Not that it doesn't care about underlying patterns. Contrarily, the goal of sociolinguistics is to establish logical justifications for the existence of linguistic variety by making use of the social diversity that provides the environment for language use. Since Labov (1965), this broad viewpoint has been acknowledged. As a result, by the early 1970s, when Fishman in particular was examining sociolinguistic variation in language use in various societies and cultures, it was assumed that any speech community of moderate complexity would reveal several varieties of language that were functionally distinct from one another (Fishman, 1972). Fishman added that sociolinguistics examines the interdependence of speech communities and their varieties and is likely to think of entire languages and entire societies as susceptible to typological categorization. As a result, sociolinguistics could be defined as the study of the characteristics of language varieties, their functions, and their speakers.
The study of linguistic diversity has lately given rise to a number of sub-traditions, two of which are particularly significant: the psychological tradition and the sociological tradition.
The first of these traditions is exemplified by researchers like Tarone (1979) and Preston (1989), much of whose work is focused with how much information can be gleaned about the psychology and sociology of language usage from the minute details of language use in extremely localized situations.
The second sub-tradition focuses on how language may reveal information about the culture in which it is employed. A nice explanation of the link between the two may be found in Hudson (1980). (Wardhaugh, 2006: 13; Hymes, 1974: 75).
3. Sociolinguistic Features
Sociolinguists must describe the functions of the speakers and hearers, as well as their relationship, age, gender, and other characteristics (Yule, 1996: 80).
The social settings have been categorized into three distinguishing criteria by several discourse analysts of sociolinguistic texts in general: place, role-relationship, and topic. These collectively make up a group of typical domains. Home is one frequent domain. Typically, a place or an activity found there is used to name a domain. So, the location is home. Family members, such as mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, have a part in the house. The family's activities, family members' news, the meal, the home, etc. are among a good range of themes. Language that is specific to the field is suitable.
Work is another popular topic. The location might be a factory, office, school, or retail space. Boss, employees, pupils, coworkers, clients, etc. are all included in the role-relationship. Work-related themes are covered. It is important to note that the sociolinguistic complexity arises when two individuals who share one role at home (for example, father and son) and another at work (for example, boss and employee). When speaking, they can alter their voice or use different language to indicate which relationship is more important at the moment (Spolsky, 1998:35).
4. Speech Community
For discourse analysts of sociolinguistic texts, understanding the idea of speech community is crucial. A speech community is a collection of individuals who adhere to the same standards and expectations for language use (Labov, 2010:50).Living and interacting together allows a speech community to develop a distinct set of language use standards. As a result, speech communities may develop among any groups that often interact and adhere to similar values. Such groupings may include of towns, nations, political or professional organizations, and communities with common pastimes, interests, or lifestyles, or they may even simply be a group of friends. (Trudgill,2000:50).
According to Labov (1972:60), speech communities may have a certain vocabulary and set of grammatical rules, as well as way of speaking and styles, as well as standards for how and when to talk in a particular fashion.
The speech community was described by John Gumberz as any group of people who regularly communicate through a shared vocabulary and are distinguished from other groups by noticeable linguistic distinctions (Eckert, 2006:60).
According to Gumperz, the speech community is made up of two key elements: a shared set of linguistic forms and a system of social norms that control how those forms are used. Gumperz also attempted to provide a typological framework for defining the possible usage of linguistic systems within a particular speech group. He introduced the idea of linguistic range, which refers to the degree of variation among the community's various linguistic systems. Depending on this variation, speech communities may be multilingual, diglossic, multidialectal, or heterogeneous. Second, the idea of compartmentalization defined how distinct discrete systems in interaction were used to employ diverse types (Gumberz,2008:3).
The researcher discovered that Labov's model was intended to explain variation between social groups within a single speech community and that it correlates more in line with three defining features of social situation: place, role-relationship, and topic, which will be the model for text analysis. This discovery serves to support the opinions and findings of the sociolinguists cited above. Discourse analysis was used to two literary pieces that the researcher randomly picked from the two stories.
Since we will find various character types and relationships in our analysis of the texts, the study's goal is to show from the texts chosen that variation can be found within a single speech community. According to the personalities involved, the researcher will discover these kinds of interactions, whether they are power relationships, solidarity relationships, or intimate relationships.
5. Data Collection
The texts to be analyzed are chosen from the two famous short stories: When the World Screamed by Arthur Conan Doyle and The Man that Corrupted Hadley burg by Mark Twain
Two texts are chosen from each story to be analyzed and discussed according to the suggested model.
6. The Analysis of Sociolinguistic Features:
I. Selected Texts of When the World Screamed
Text no.1:
It was clear to me that I was dealing with a lunatic, so I thought it well before I went any further in the matter to call upon my friend Malone, whom I had known since the old days when we both played Rugger for Richmond. I found him the same jolly Irishman as ever, and much amused at my first brush with Challenger.
'That's nothing, my boy,' said he. 'You'll feel as if you had been skinned alive when you have been with him five minutes. He beats the world for offensiveness.'
'But why should the world put up with it?'
'They don't. If you collected all the libel actions and all the rows and all the police-court assaults—'
'Assaults!'
'Bless you, he would think nothing of throwing you downstairs if you have a disagreement. He is a primitive cave-man in a lounge suit. I can see him with a club in one hand and a jagged bit of flint in the other. Some people are born out of their proper century, but he is born out of his millennium. He belongs to the early neolithic or thereabouts.'
'And he a professor!'
'There is the wonder of it! It's the greatest brain in Europe, with a driving force behind it that can turn all his dreams into facts. They do all they can to hold him back for his colleagues hate him like poison, but a lot of trawlers might as well try to hold back the Berengaria. He simply ignores them and steams on his way.'
The Analysis:
Place: not-mentioned but it seems that it's Peerless's house
Role- relationship: a friendship between the narrator Peerless Jones and his friend Ted Malone
Topic: describing Mr. Challenger’s personality
Malone states that Professor Challenger is an angry, irritable, and powerful person. Mr. Peerless Jones, a specialist in artesian borings who is introduced for the first time, tells the entire tale in the first person. It is the fourth Professor Challenger narrative, and the only characters from the first novel who remain are Challenger and Malone.
The deep and long connection between the two characters is made clear by the use of phrases like "my boy" and "You will be a fool if you don't!" There are no politeness cues or address phrases that indicate a power dynamic.
Text no.2:
'Ah yes,' he said, picking it up and handling it as if he disliked the smell of it. 'Of course. You are the expert so- called. Mr. Jones—Mr. Peerless Jones. You may thank your godfather, Mr. Jones, for it was this ludicrous prefix which first drew my attention to you.'
'I am here, Professor Challenger, for a business interview and not to discuss my own name,' said I, with all the dignity I could master.
'Dear me, you seem to be a very touchy person, Mr. Jones. Your nerves are in a highly irritable condition. We must walk warily in dealing with you, Mr. Jones. Pray sit down and compose yourself. I have been reading your little brochure upon the reclaiming of the Sinai Peninsula. Did you write it yourself?'
'Naturally, sir. My name is on it.'
'Quite so! Quite so! But it does not always follow, does it? However, I am prepared to accept your assertion. The book is not without merit of a sort. Beneath the dullness of the diction, one gets glimpses of an occasional idea. There are germs of thought here and there. Are you a married man?'
'No, sir. I am not.'
'Then there is some chance of your keeping a secret.'
'If I promised to do so, I would certainly keep my promise.
The Analysis:
Place: Mr. Challenger’s office
Role- relationship: Strangers who meet for the first time
Topic: formal work conversation
The cautious Mr. Jones shows his respect and formality to Mr. Challenger. The two used personal titles, e.g., Mr. Jones and Mr. Challenger. The latter keeps on criticizing Mr. Jones writings and he is obviously in a higher social position as well as a famous person.
II. Selected Texts of The Man that Corrupted Hadley burg
Text no.3:
A woman’s voice said “Come in,” and he entered, and set his sack behind the stove in the parlour, saying politely to the old lady who sat reading the “Missionary Herald” by the lamp:
“Pray keep your seat, madam, I will not disturb you. There—now it is pretty well concealed; one would hardly know it was there. Can I see your husband a moment, madam?”
No, he was gone to Brixton, and might not return before morning.
“Very well, madam, it is no matter. I merely wanted to leave that sack in his care, to be delivered to the rightful owner when he shall be found. I am a stranger; he does not know me; I am merely passing through the town to-night to discharge a matter which has been long in my mind. My errand is now completed, and I go pleased and a little proud, and you will never see me again. There is a paper attached to the sack which will explain everything. Good-night, madam.”
The old lady was afraid of the mysterious big stranger, and was glad to see him go. But her curiosity was roused, and she went straight to the sack and brought away the paper.
The Analysis
Place: The cashier's house
Topic: Delivering a sack of money with a letter
Role- relationship: strangers: the cashier's wife doesn't know the man. For instance, he has used special adjectives and politeness markers which reveal his respect to the woman who was afraid and, at the same time, curious about him, e.g. "saying politely to the old lady who sat reading the “Missionary Herald” by the lamp:
“Pray keep your seat, madam, I will not disturb you".
He also keeps on calling her 'madam', while the other keeps silence.
The mysterious words and formality of the stranger keeps the readers eager to read the whole story.
Text no.4:
At eleven Mr. Richards arrived, and while his wife was saying “I am so glad you’ve come!” he was saying, “I am so tired—tired clear out; it is dreadful to be poor, and have to make these dismal journeys at my time of life. Always at the grind, grind, grind, on a salary—another man’s slave, and he sitting at home in his slippers, rich and comfortable.”
“I am so sorry for you, Edward, you know that; but be comforted; we have our livelihood; we have our good name—”
“Yes, Mary, and that is everything. Don’t mind my talk—it’s just a moment’s irritation and doesn’t mean anything. Kiss me—there, it’s all gone now, and I am not complaining any more. What have you been getting? What’s in the sack?”
Then his wife told him the great secret. It dazed him for a moment; then he said:
“It weighs a hundred and sixty pounds? Why, Mary, it’s forty thousand dollars—think of it—a whole fortune! Not ten men in this village are worth that much. Give me the paper.”
He skimmed through it and said:
“Isn’t it an adventure! Why, it’s a romance; it’s like the impossible things one reads about in books, and never sees in life.” He was well stirred up now; cheerful, even gleeful. He tapped his old wife on the cheek, and said humorously, “Why, we’re rich, Mary, rich; all we’ve got to do is to bury the money and burn the papers. If the gambler ever comes to inquire, we’ll merely look coldly upon him and say: ‘What is this nonsense you are talking? We have never heard of you and your sack of gold before;’ and then he would look foolish, and—”
The Analysis
Place: The cashier's house
Topic: Complaining about being poor, family problems and being surprised by the stranger's fortune.
Role- relationship: The vocabulary and kinds of sentences used in the conversation reflects the strong relationship between the two characters. In addition, the text lacks the address terms and politeness markers which
reveal a power relationship.
The two characters are a wife and a husband and there is intimacy and solidarity between the two characters by means of the vocabulary used by both of them. They use topics concerning family members, sarcastic expression and lacks of politeness or formal markers to indicate this relationship.
Conclusion
There is not so much differences between the two stories. Whenever the characters are strangers and they meet for the first time, the social relationship is a power one and they use to call each other with formal titles. On the other hand, it's always solidarity and intimacy among friends or family members.
Different kinds of registers are most clearly seen in the second story in which more characters are produced and made more conversations.
References
Chambers, J.K. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory. Linguistic Variation and Its Social Significance. Oxford: Blackwell
Crystal, D. (1987). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Eckert, P. (2006). Linguistic Variation as a Social Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (1972). Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague. Paris: Mouton.
Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.) (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
__________ (2008). "Studying language, culture, and society: Sociolinguistics or linguistic
Hudson, R.A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic
Approach. USA: The University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
-------------- (2010). Principle of Linguistic Change. Malden: Wiley Blackwell Press
Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Routledge. Pearson Longman.
Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Socio-linguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Spolky, P. (1998). Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Soeparno. 2002. Dasar-Dasar LinguistikUmum. Yogyakarta: Tiara WacanaYogya.
Tarone, E. (1979). "Interlanguage as chameleon" in Language Learning
29: 181-191.
Trudgill, P. (ed.) (1984). Applied Sociolinguistics. England: Academic Press.
_________ (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London: Penguin Books.
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 5th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1.
Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language. England: Cambridge University Press.
- Quote paper
- Hussien Salah (Author), 2024, Sociolinguistic Features in Short Stories. "When the World Screamed" by Arthur Conan Doyle and "The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg" by Mark Twain, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1470705
