An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic, and Listener

Abstract

Sociolinguists study verbal behavior in terms of the relations between the setting, the participants, the topic, the functions of the interaction, the form, and the values held by the participants about each of these (Hymes 1962:25). Verbal behavior (talk and its equivalents) is the center of this definition, but of course a complete description of the system must include gestures or pictures when they are functional alternatives to linguistic signs. Verbal behavior is everywhere structured as a highly cohesive system, and therefore it is a convenient starting point. Others might want to deal with a larger set of communicative acts including, for instance, the dance and exchange of tangible objects. SETTINGWe shall use the term setting here in two senses, that of locale, or time and place, and that of situation, including the "standing behavior patterns" (Barker and Wright 1954:45-46) occurring when people encounter one another. Thus, situations include a family breakfast, a faculty meeting, a party, Thanksgiving dinner, a lecture, a date. Social situations may be restricted by cultural norms which specify the appropriate participants, the physical setting, the topics, the functions of discourse, and the style. Obviously, situations vary as to which of these restrictions exist and the degree of permissible variation, so that a sermon may allow less style variation than a party. By altering any of these features, one might either create a reaction of social outrage, change the situation to a new one (date becomes job interview), or enter a situation lacking strong normative attributes and allowing maximal variation.One of the major problems for sociolinguists will be the discovery of independent and reliable methods for defining settings. The folk taxonomy of a given society (Conklin 1962:120) might provide lexical categories for the definition of settings. However, the folk taxonomy may be too gross or too fine to indicate classifications of value to the social scientist. The high degree of regularity of 86

Functions of Code Switching in Schoolchildren's Conversations

“…Early research in this area has identified the types of CS and the factors affecting it (e.g., Clyne, 1967;Ervin-Tripp, 1964;Fishman, 1965;Gumperz, 1964Gumperz, , 1967Gumperz & Hernández-Chavez, 1975). More specifically, CS varies according to the situation (situational code switching) and within a conversation (metaphorical code switching).…”

“…In this study, communicative competence refers to the speaker's knowledge of when to speak and when not to, and what to talk about with whom, when, where, and in what manner (Hymes, 1974). Based on previous research, we know that monolingual speakers have the capacity to switch between a variety of linguistic registers (e.g., Gumperz, 1967;Ervin-Tripp, 1964. Similarly, bilinguals also have these communicative registers that monolinguals have, but in addition they have two linguistic codes that they can alternate as a resource for sociolinguistic strategies during conversation.…”

Vene-eesti koodivahetuse funktsioonid Kohtla-Järve venekeelsete laste vestluses

“…Mingi keele kõnelejad on võimelised vahetama registreid (Gumperz 1967, Ervin-Tripp 1964. Samad võtted on olemas ka kakskeelsetel, kuid lisanduvad veel eri keeled.…”

“…Varasemates pragmaatilistes uurimustes on sõnastatus koodivahetuse tüübid ja seda mõjutavad faktorid (Ervin-Tripp 1964, Fishman 1965, Gumperz 1964, Clyne 1967, Gumperz, Hernández-Chavez 1975. Nimelt varieerub koodivahetus sõltuvalt situatsioonist ja vestluse eesmärgist.…”

Language Contact: The Case of Japanese in Australia and New Zealand

“…While this is a study ofthe Japanese language spoken in AustralialNew Zealand, studies in other overseas varieties of Japanese provide us with invaluable data for comparison (other data include: Ervin-Tripp 1964Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, etc. )21 (Riga 1975;Kimura 1988: 30~32).…”