Formal Linguistics vs Sociolinguistics

Formal Linguistics vs Sociolinguistics

by Peter L. Patrick

Here are some of the differences in approach we might mention b/w formal linguistics & socio-linguistics.

Formal Linguistics

1. Adopts model of Linguistics as a 'physical science'; metaphors are computers, genes; primarily qualitative methods; interested in predictions and invariant laws (e.g. in physics, factors affecting friction are same everywhere)
2. Focuses on biological capacity for language, the property separating humans from animals; concentrates on language universals all humans share; asks, "What is Universal Grammar (UG)?"
3. Investigates genetically-programmed ability to learn language structures
4. Takes any normal person as a source of linguistic data on "their" language, through introspection and intuitions
5. Principally concerned with informational/communication function of language
6. Evidence from "marginal" data: child speech, mistakes, aphasia, 'Genie', deaf/signers; interested in how they shed light on nature of UG

GOAL: seeks to understand & explain language structure through genetically-shared language universals



Sociolinguistics

1. Adopts model of social sciences: studies behavior, uses both quantitative and qualitative methods (incl. statistics); ethnographic & sociological research paradigms; explanation does not imply ability to predict or apply laws. [Employs same linguistic-analysis toolbox as formal linguistics, plus more]
2. Focuses on diversity-- variation-- of language use in different social groups (cultures, ethnicities, societies, nations, genders, ages, occupations, cities, and so forth); asks, "How does social context determine language use?", and "What are the social functions of linguistic diversity?"
3. Investigates socially-constituted and -learned patterns of language use and their interface w/language structure
4. Requires systematic methods of data collection: since every speaker has complex social identity, it must take account of social context & history
5. Concerned with both informational and expressive functions of language
6. Evidence from communities and coherent social settings; also interested in "margins" (e.g. deaf signers, minorities); takes their social/historical context and needs into account

GOAL: seeks to understand & explain language variation through (linguistic & social) context



Some problems with common formal linguistics approaches:

* Often, "evidence in generative linguistics does not consist of observations of events, and therefore... does not [allow] law-like generalizations" (Carr) -
* i.e. it does not fit the model of physical science which it claims to follow
* Focuses on mental phenomena - e.g. sentences, speaker judgments - which are "purely speaker-internal - representations of linguistic realities, which are speaker-external" (Carr)
* Focuses on the deducible competence of an idealized speaker/hearer,
* typically a monolingual 'native speaker' in a stable, homogeneous monolingual community,
* despite massive evidence that such speakers do not exist and would indeed be dysfunctional.
* Limits itself to intuitive data on standard languages by educated, privileged speakers,
* thus perhaps reinforcing non-standard bias and the low status of non-standard speakers.
* "Differences in data" studied are profound: Formal linguists study a much smaller subset of actual language used than sociolinguists.
* "The selection of a data type has a profound influence on the range of phenomena which a model aims to represent and a theory aims to explain" (Schiffrin)
* Lacks or fails to use an explicit methodology for collecting and handling data.
* Does not recognize that typical methods of doing so involve distortions of data due to speaker awareness of observation.
* Consequently, rarely attempts to correct distortions and improve data-handling methods.
* Makes no systematic attempt to consider linguistic bias as a component of human language use that affects their data, methods, and the use to which formal analyses may be put -
* I.e. fails to include language bias as a human (social) fact within the discipline of studying human language.
* Does not recognize the role of social factors in influencing the analyst's reasoning,
* E.g. specifically the social character of standard vs. non-standard languages,
* Or power relations inherent between researcher and speaker that surface in language use.
* Is itself biased as a field of study by the failure to promote non-standard languages as objects of study, and also to promote non-standard speakers as formal linguists within the profession.
* In general, lacks a social critique of itself as a profession -
* of the relation of formal linguistic analysis to language speakers -
* and of the role of formal linguists vis-à-vis the politics of everyday language.
* Some of the above criticisms apply to sociolinguistics too, in varying degrees.
* However, all the above factors are subjects of frequent and serious debate within the field of sociolinguistics, which is continually engaged in identifying and struggling with such problems.
* In a number of areas, such as the testing and extension of methodology, or the promotion of both non-standard languages and speakers, sociolinguistics can document extensive progress.
* Thus key differences exist between formal and socio-linguistics in data, methodology, and social impact.



References, Quotes and Notes:

See Escure (1997: 9-14), Schiffrin (1987:392) and Carr (1994) for some of these points.

"Evidence in generative linguistics does not consist of observations of events, and therefore... the object of inquiry does not admit of law-like generalizations and is thus distinct from the object of physical inquiry." (Carr 1994:392).

According to Carr, generative syntax focuses on the sentence as its central object of inquiry -- despite disclaimers from e.g. Chomsky 1986 to the effect that sentences are part of E-language. "Syntacticians are still busy analyzing sentences, as ever... [and] continue, as ever, to make crucial use of [them... as] evidence for and against hypotheses in syntax" (Carr 1990:401). These sentences and other principal objects of inquiry are purely speaker-internal - representations of linguistic realities, which are speaker-external. In this sense, he argues, the claim that generative linguistics is a branch of cognitive psychology is a mistaken one.

Sociolinguists, in contrast, claim to focus on objects of inquiry which are for the most part speaker-external, i.e. linguistic objects of various sorts.

Carr, Philip. 1990. Linguistic realities: An autonomist metatheory for the generative enterprise. CUP.

Carr, Philip. 1994. "Facthood and reality in linguistics: A reply to Love [1992]". Language & Communication 14(4): 391-402.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. NY: Praeger.

Escure, Genevieve. 1997. Creole and Dialect Continua. (Creole Language Library, vol. 18.) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Towards an empirical base in pragmatics. Review article. Language in Society 16(3):381-395.