Introduction

Language death occurs in unstable bilingual or multilingual speech communities as a result of language shift from a regressive minority language to a dominant majority language. Language shift typically involves a gradual transition from unstable bilingualism to monolingualism, that is the loss or ‘death’ of the recessive language. There are two other ways in which a language may perish that are not typically referred to as ‘language death.’ One is a result of its having been transformed into a daughter language, as, for example, the replacement of standard Latin by standard Spanish. Thus a ‘dead language’ (e.g. Latin) does not necessarily arise through ‘language death.’ The other is where an entire speech community has died, as happened with Tasmanian and the Californian language Yaki (Swadesh 1948: 226ff.).

This chapter, following most work on the topic, will focus primarily on the phenomena of language decay that lead or seem to lead to language death. The most important of these are those structural and functional changes that appear to be irreversible, particularly those which cannot be halted in spite of efforts to preserve the dying form or usage. Ideally, one would wish for a comprehensive theory which would predict and explain such irreversible changes.

Introduction

The relationship between language and racial groups has both a biological and a political dimension. The biological dimension first emerged historically as distinct genetic characteristics evolved among various human tribes in relative geographical isolation. Thus, in the typical case, language and race were originally correlated directly. But throughout history, linguistic change has been both rapid and drastic in comparison with the stability of the distinct racial groups. Thus the relative status and life expectancy of a language have come to be much more a function of the political and economic circumstances of its speakers than of their race per se. Indeed, the speech communities of influential world languages like English and Russian are multiracial, a fact that reflects their global expansion and great political and economic influence.

Whatever the evolutionary correlation may be between race and language, linguists hold all races – and the languages of their speakers – to be equal. Franz Boas and his student Edward Sapir eloquently stated the case for the equality of race and language respectively:

Language: the socio-cultural context is the last of four volumes comprising Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. The first three volumes of the series are entitled Linguistic theory: foundations, Linguistic theory: extensions and implications, and Language: psychological and biological aspects. Their common thread is the treatment of language as a mental or biological entity. Thus they are devoted primarily to presenting the constructs of theoretical linguistics and to probing the evidence for their psychological reality, as well as to sorting out the implications that their reality may have for diverse areas of investigation. But language, of course, is more than a mental phenomenon. Indeed, many would say that such a function is secondary to its role in social interaction, i.e. to its function in communication and as the principal agent for the transmission of cultural and social values.

The point of departure of the chapters in this volume is the socio-cultural aspect of language; each explores a different dimension of this aspect. The volume begins with a critical overview by Beatriz R. Lavandera of studies of language in its socio-cultural context. She contrasts three different orientations guiding such studies: one in which the investigator's attention is focussed on practical goals, without challenging any of the precepts of normal mainstream linguistics; one which takes the position that most traditional problems of mainstream linguistics admit of a solution once social variables are incorporated; and a third which attempts to reconstitute linguistics itself to provide a theory of language in its social context.

Introduction

Pidgins and creoles have been the center of linguistic controversy for over a century now (Coelho 1880–6; Schuchardt 1883, 1889, 1909) and give no indication of yielding that position today (Bickerton 1981, 1984). Many of the issues of a hundred years ago remain unresolved, and much of current discussion was anticipated by Schuchardt in his many articles. Even standard definitions of pidginization and creolization have not been accepted by all scholars concerned with the field (see, for example, the conflicting definitions in Hymes 1971 and Andersen 1983). For my purposes I will adopt the following definitions. A pidgin is a contract language which is an amalgam of linguistic elements of two or more languages and which arises in social and economic transactions between at least two groups speaking different languages, by a process of restriction and simplification of one of the languages of these groups, usually that in a socially superior position. This process of restriction and simplification is termed pidginization. By definition a pidgin is no one's native language. A creole is a pidgin which has become the native language of a speech community. In the process of becoming nativized, the pidgin undergoes extension and elaboration, i.e. it becomes creolized.

Introduction

Languages offer their speakers a rich array of expressive possibilities. In a given situation, speakers ‘choose their words’ carefully in an attempt to communicate as closely as possible what they want others to understand. On a variety of levels (referential, emotive, social), these choices convey meaning. In English, for example, we say ‘lemme’ when we assess the situation as less formal, ‘let me’ when more formal; we indicate sarcasm with a particular intonation pattern; we demonstrate the relationship we perceive with an interlocutor by the form of address we use (Ms Jones, Susan, or a nickname). When distinct varieties of language, or different languages, are available within a community's linguistic repertoire, the resources for expression are increased still further, since the use of one language variety rather than another in a given situation conveys meaning as well, by demonstrating identification with a particular group, loyalty to a heritage language, attitude toward an interlocutor, and so on.

Since language alternatives typically carry social import, it is not surprising that attempts are made to influence the way in which language is used. As Fasold (1984: 246) observes, ‘The existence of alternatives makes planning possible.’ These alternatives exist at all levels of language use, but not all levels are equally susceptible targets for language planning.

In its emergence as a paradigm for the study of language, sociolinguistic variation theory has evolved through simultaneous confrontation with various other ways of viewing language. Along with most other schools of linguistics, it has explicitly taken position against unscientific normative and prescriptive ideologies of language, but it has also carried on a rather subtler rivalry with certain methodologically more rigorous psycholinguistic traditions. Together with other ‘hyphenated’ branches of linguistics, it has had continuously to situate itself with respect to generative linguistics, but at the same time it has defended its own criteria and methods from attack by antiformalist sociolinguistics. These external debates are reflected in the most important issues within the field; in this chapter I review these highly interrelated isues in what I believe to be a coherent synthesis of the variation theory perspectives on data, method, theory, and the social insertion of linguistic science. I adopt a Habermasian, critical theory approach to understanding:

1. the social interests underlying linguistic research paradigms

2. the origins of variation theory in colonialized and minority language communities

3. the type of data that must be accounted for in these communities

4. the particular kind of analytical problems and theoretical questions pertinent to these data

5. the epistemological status of a descriptive–interpretive methodology for dealing with the form–function problem – the central issue in the study of syntactic variation, with ramifications for all of these topics.

Introduction

Questions of gender are now seen as a major challenge in almost every discipline that deals with human behavior, cognition, institutions, society, and culture. Within linguistics, however, sex/gender studies have played a relatively minor role: ‘feminist linguistics’ is far better known in literary than linguistic circles (see e.g. Ruthven 1984, Chapter 3). There are, of course, occasional publications in linguistics journals and papers at linguistics meetings. It is fair to say, however, that the recent ‘feminist intervention,’ which is largely responsible for the increased attention to gender in so many areas of intellectual inquiry, has been little felt by most linguists, many of whom have scoffed at claims (e.g. in Spender 1980) that language is ‘man made.’

Why have linguists been relatively inactive in the rapidly growing area of research on language and gender? One reason is that most of the initial impetus for investigation of this area derived from feminist thinkers' concern to understand gender, especially the mechanisms that create and maintain male dominance, and not from interest in language as such. This emphasis made the early research of limited professional interest to linguists though often of considerable personal and political interest to many of us as participants in the women's movement.

Introduction

In all human societies individuals will differ from one another in the way they speak. Some of these differences are idiosyncratic, but others are systematically associated with particular groups of people. The most obvious of these are associated with sex and developmental level: women speak differently from men, and children differently from adults. These two dimensions of social variation in language are in part biologically determined (e.g. differences in laryngeal size producing different pitch levels for adult men and women), but in most societies they go beyond this to become conventional and socially symbolic. Thus men and women differ by far more in language use than mere pitch. (In fact, even their pitch differences are more pronounced than can be anatomically explained.) Such sociosymbolic aspects of language use serve an emblematic function: they identify the speaker as belonging to a particular group, or having a particular social identity.

In many societies some of the most important of these sociolinguistic divisions are associated with differences in social prestige, wealth, and power. Bankers clearly do not talk the same as busboys, and professors don't sound like plumbers. They signal the social differences between them by features of their phonology, grammar, and lexical choice, just as they do extralinguistically by their choices in clothing, cars, and so on.

Introduction

The ethnography of speaking (henceforth ES) studies language use as displayed in the daily life of particular speech communities. Its method is ethnography, supplemented by techniques developed in other areas of study such as developmental pragmatics, conversation analysis, poetics, and history. Its theoretical contributions are centered around the study of situated discourse, that is, linguistic performance as the locus of the relationship between language and the socio-cultural order.

From the point of view of the content of daily verbal interaction, ES is interested in the relationship between language use and local systems of knowledge and social conduct. ES views discourse as one of the main loci for the (re)creation and transmission of cultural patterns of knowledge and social action. More specifically, ES studies what is accomplished through speaking and how speech is related to and is constructed by particular aspects of social organization and speakers' assumptions, values, and beliefs about the world. The meaning of speech for particular speakers in specific social activities is thus a central concern for ES. Some typical questions asked by ethnographers of speaking in analyzing a particular strip of verbal interaction are: what is the goal of speech in this case? Which attributes of the linguistic code warrant its use in this context? What is the relation of this interaction to other, similar acts performed by the same actors or to other events observed in the same community?

With respect to the form of daily language use, ES has been focussing on patterns of variation across socio-cultural contexts, both within and across societies, with particular emphasis on the interrelation of the emergent and the culturally predictable structure of verbal performance in the conduct of social life.

What is a speech act?

Speech act theory has its roots in the work of Wittgenstein, who in Philosophical Investigations proposed an analogy between using language and playing games. His basic point was that language is a form of rule-governed behavior, much the same as game-playing, employing rules and conventions that are mutually known to all the participants.

The field of speech act theory is usually considered to have been founded by Austin (1962) who analyzed certain utterances called performatives. He observed that some utterances do more than express something that is true about the world. In uttering a sentence like “I promise to take out the garbage,” the speaker is not saying anything about the world, but is rather undertaking an obligation. An utterance like “I now pronounce you man and wife” not only does not say anything that is true about the world, but when uttered in an appropriate context by an appropriate speaker, actually changes the state of the world. Austin argued that an account of performative utterances required an extension of traditional truth-theoretic semantics.

The most significant contribution to speech act theory has been made by philosopher John Searle (1969, 1979a, 1979b), who was the first to develop an extensive formulation of the theory of speech acts.

What has been accomplished

Kamp represents the first step in a very ambitious program of research. It is appropriate at this time to reflect upon this program, how far we have come, and what lies in the future.

KAMP represents not merely an attempt to devise an expedient strategy for getting text out of a computer, but rather embodies an entire theory of communication. The goal of such a theory could be summarized by saying that its objective is to account for how agents manage to intentionally affect the beliefs, desires and intentions of other agents. Developing such a theory requires examining utterances to determine the goals the speakers are attempting to achieve thereby, and in the process explicating the knowledge about their environment, about their audience, and about their language that these speakers must have. Language generation has been ehosen as an ideal vehicle for the study of problems arising from such a theory because it requires one to face the problem of why speakers choose to do the things they do in a way that is not required by language understanding. Theories of language understanding make heavy use of the fact that the speaker is behaving according to a coherent plan. Language generation requires producing such a coherent plan in the first place, and therefore requires uncovering the underlying principles that make such a plan coherent.

Introduction

This chapter discusses in detail a typical example that requires KAMP to form a plan involving several physical and illocutionary acts, and then to integrate the illocutionary acts into a single utterance. This example does not reflect every aspect of utterance planning, but hopefully touches upon enough of them to enable an understanding of the way KAMP works, to illustrate the principles discussed in earlier chapters of this book, and to provide a demonstration of KAMP's power and some of its limitations. It is important to bear in mind that the implementation of KAMP was done to test the feasability of a particular approach to multiagent planning and language generation. Since it is not intended to be a “production” system, many details of efficiency involving both fundamental issues and engineering problems have been purposely disregarded in this discussion.

KAMP is based on a first-order logic natural-deduction system that is similar in many respects to the one proposed by Moore (1980). The current implementation does not take advantage of well-known techniques such as structure sharing and indexing that could be used to reduce some of the computational effort required. Nevertheless, the system is reliable, albeit inefficient, in making the necessary deductions to solve problems similar to the one described here.