Hymes

Functions


Jan Blommaert
Intellectual powerhouse and empire builder
Reed, Indiana, Harvard, Berkeley, Pennsylvania,
Virginia
Linguistics, anthropology, folklore, education
Students and colleagues: Bauman, Sherzer, Darnell,
Silverstein, Ochs, Irvine, Hornberger, Gumperz, Ervin-
Tripp, Goffman, Cicourel, Jakobson, Burke
But never wrote a synthesis of his theoretical
insights
1974: Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An
Ethnographic Approach
1996: Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality:
Toward an Understanding of Voice
Main concerns
Understanding the role of language/speech in
individual lives and in the lives of collectives
Understanding linguistic inequality as a practical
and theoretical problem
Developing a fully social and humanistic theory
of language/speech
Paradigm shift in linguistics: sociolinguistics
Extending anthropological tradition: ethnography
Background 1: linguistics
1957: Chomsky Syntactic structures
Object of linguistics: The ideal speaker in a
contextless environment
Distinction between Competence (abstract
grammatical capacity) and Performance
(actualization of competence)
Linguistics concerned with Competence:
structure, grammar
Theoretically elaborate: model of a social-
scientific theory
Background 2: Anthropology
Boas-Sapir-Whorf tradition of understanding the
place of language in culture
Ethnography: comprehensive description of
cultural phenomena (incl. Language)
Focus on context of cultural phenomena
Language structure is related to culture, informs
us about culture (or vice versa)
Sapir-Whorf thesis: linguistic relativity
(different forms can have the same function)
Hymes the anti-Chomskyan
Responds to Chomsky from within
anthropological paradigm
Distinction between STRUCTURE and USE
Structure = concern of Chomskyan
linguistics
Structure AND use is concern of
ethnography of speaking
EoS = continuation of anthropological
paradigm in response to Chomsky
Study of language should be study of ALL of
language, i.e. also its use
Its use is also rule-governed and can be
approached theoretically
If we do that, we may get a better idea of
structure as well
Linguistic relativity was about language structure
Second linguistic relativity
Sapir-Whorf relativity: different form,
same function
In different cultures, the same things can be
achieved with very different linguistic forms
Hymesian relativity: same form different
function
In different cultures, the same linguistic forms
can have very different patterns of use
Hymesian relativity is underlying to Sapir-Whorf
relativity because it looks at language from
within a wider pattern
Distinction between language and speech
Speech = totality of (cultural) communicative
forms, including language (linguistic patterns)
Speech is always repertoire
Linguistic forms need to be considered as part of
a repertoire of speech forms
The place of linguistic forms in this repertoire
needs to be described and understood

So: EoS looks at repertoires of speech
forms and determines the place of
particular resources within this repertoire
The same linguistic forms can have very
different places in the repertoires of
different cultures
Function = place within a repertoire
Determining such functions is the essential
task of EoS (and has been neglected by
linguistics and pre-Hymesian
anthropology)
A simple example
Newspapers
Compare newspapers in Belgium with newspapers in
Tanzania (typologically very similar)
In Belgium: mass media and reflection of public
opinion
Belgium:
very high literacy rate (literacy in standard language is part
of most peoples repertoire)
Most people (the masses) buy and read newspapers
Linguistically homogeneous/centralized: newspapers are in
the language of the masses

Tanzania:
Very low literacy rate (literacy is not part of most
peoples repertoire)
Newspapers are in English; does not belong to the
repertoire of most people
Most people who are literate in English are
clustered in cities: very small elite
The language of newspapers in Tanzania occupies
a very different place in the repertoires than in
Belgium
> Newpapers are an urban elite medium in Tanzania

From function to inequality
Concern for repertoire is anthropological or
sociological
Forces one to look into the fabric of societies
Becomes a critical social science, because:
Repertoires are collections of unevenly
distributed resources
Compare literacy in Belgium and Tanzania
Has an effect on what people can do with speech
resources
Some people have a lot, some a little
Speech resources have (uneven) value
Are organised according to norms and customs
that rank resources-in-use
The deployment of resources is a socially
evaluated act, which comes with a price (good
speakers bad speakers, good language bad
language)
Communicating well (= normatively) matters, is
a problem to people and requires work
Language as CONSTRAINT , not just opportunity
Norms are social and cultural codes of use
Of grammar
Of language variety and code
Of style in performace
A competent member of a society can
handle the norms, including shifts
between them
Because multiple norms are the rule (use
of speech is never stable)
In multilingual environments
But equally in monolingual environments

So we see
A transition from language to resources
Ordered in repertoires
In which resources have a place
Which is organised by sociocultural norms of use
and shifts
And involves uneven access to different
resources
Due to social and cultural structures (e.g. young
children are illiterate)
A whole new vocabulary to talk about
communication
Not languages but particular resources
Everyone is multilingual even when
monolingual
Meanings are effects of social and cultural
factors
Diversity and inequality are essential in
understanding the system of speech in society