SPEECH COMMUNITIES

~Louise Mullany~

Roberta Konar & Petra

Penik

 Eckert (2000) sociolinguists seek a

unit of analysis at a level of social
aggregation at which it can be said
that heterogeneity is organised
speech communities vs. social
networks vs. communities of practice

DEFINING SPEECH
COMMUNITIES
a group of speakers, whether located in
one area or scattered, who recognize the
same language or dialect of a language as
a standard (American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language)
a community consisting of all the speakers
of a particular language or dialect (Collins
English Dictionary)
a group of people sharing a common
language or dialect (Oxford English
Dictionary)

DEFINING SPEECH COMMUNITIES

early definition: speech communities exist
simply because individuals share the same
language or dialect (Lyons)
can be easily refuted English all its
speakers do not constitute a speech
community various, isolated
circularity (Wardhaugh) defining speech
communities based on linguistic criteria
justifiable sociolinguistic
definition => the
socio
consideration of other categories as well

 Labov Lower East Side New York study

The speech community is not defined by any
marked agreement in the use of language
elements, so much as by participation in a set
of shared norms; these norms may be
observed in overt types of evaluative
behaviour, and by the uniformity of abstract
patterns of variation which are invariant in
respect to particular levels of usage. (1972b:
120-1)

necessary to agree on evaluative

norms,
norms not language use

Criticism and appraisal

Britain & Matsumoto
excluding NY non-natives can mask the origins of linguistic
changes

presuming a consensus model of society

Milroy & Milroy

alternative conflict model

Patrick
stressing the pressure of standard norms, not
uniformity
speakers resistance to standard language norms?

Labovs definition nevertheless influential

 quantitative, qualitative,
ethnographic sociolinguistics
Saville-Troike ethnography of
communication (2003)
how communication is patterned and
organised within a speech community
findings applied to wider social and
cultural issues

Saville-Troikes definition
The essential criterion for community is that
some significant dimension of experience has
to be shared, and for the speech community
that the shared dimension be related to ways
in which members of the group use, value or
interpret language. (2003:15)

shared sense of evaluative

experience + shared language use

 hard-shelled speech communities

strong boundaries
minimal interaction with outsiders
preserving language and cultural norms

soft-shelled speech communities

weaker boundaries
less likely to preserve language and
cultural norms

Speech community membership

(Saville-Troike)
simultaneous membership
overlapping
Patrick the conceptualization of
intermediate structures
Santa Ana & Parodi nesting
4 nested fields points of embeddedness
of different groups (Mexican Spanish
dialect)
locale, vicinity, district, national

Social networks
less abstract framework
social ties that specific speakers have
with each other; how these ties affect
speakers linguistic usage
strength of a social network (dense
or loose and uniplex or multiplex)
conditions the possibility of
language change

 Milroys work in Belfast (1978, 1987)

focused solely on working-class speakers
network strength score designed to measure
the density and multiplexity of a network
social factors kinship ties and socialization
with their workmates
highest network scores maintenance of
local vernacular norms
close social networks acting as norm
reinforcement mechanisms

Communities of practice
Eckert & McConnell-Ginet
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. (1992: 464)

examining language as a form of practice

formal/informal enterprises,
core/peripheral members, small/large
communities, can come into or go out of
existence

 communities of practice defined by its

membership and the shared practices
its members partake in (Eckert 2000)
global communities (Eckert &
McConnell-Ginet)
ethnographic approach to data
collection (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet)
vs. quantitative studies
(overgeneralization, stereotypes)

Wengers communities of
practice
3 dimensions of practice needed for a
community of practice
mutual engagement
joint negotiated enterprise
shared repertoire

14 indicators of its formation

useful for ethnographic studies
the complexity of specific situations,
impossible to make broader observations

Comparing the frameworks

social networks and communities of practice
favour qualitative methods, participant
observation, how membership is constructed

social networks and speech communities

distinct parallels between dense multiplex
networks and hard-shelled speech communities

speech communities and communities of

practice
membership defined externally and internally
respectively, shared social / instrumental goals

 social networks and communities of

practice
speaker contact limited or infrequent
vs. regular and mutually defining
(Holmes and Meyerhoff)
differences focus and method (Milroy
and Gordon)

Conclusion
Britain and Matsumoto (2005)
general trend away from speech
communities model towards the
communities of practice model
long-standing historical debate between
structure and agency
bottom-up model
criticism: simplifying the picture

 Patrick the legitimacy of analytical

choices [...] depends upon selection of
the research question, in addition to the
site (2001:589)
these frameworks do not exist as
predefined entities waiting to be
researched tools which researchers
constitute themselves
moving away from dichotomous thinking