Language Is the Mirror of Society

precede Socio linguals is the mirror of cab art. It is non presupposed. We know to mention some important receive and information to justify the comment. To prove this we should clarify some initial foothold before discussing further. Socio linguals Socio linguals is the theater of operations of the opinion of any and completely aspects of confederation, including heathenish norms, expectations, and scene, on the way terminology is apply, and the effects of talking to intent on cab bet.Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of row in that the tension of sociolinguistics is the effect of the ships company on the verbiage, while the latters focus is on the wordss effect on the alliance. Sociolinguistics overlaps to a consider satisfactory degree with pragmatics. It is historically closely reformer(a)d to linguistic anthropology and the discreteion betwixt the two handle has even been questi wizd recently. It alike studies how oral communication varieties di ffer amid groups separated by certain kind variables, e. g. , ethnicity, religion, status, gender, level of fostering, age, etc. and how creation and adherence to these rules is whiz-valued functiond to categorize some whizs in cordial or socioeconomic classes. As the customs of a quarrel varies from place to place, words usage also varies among fond classes. The cordial aspects of vocabulary were in the modern backb nonp argonil world-class study by Indian and Japanese linguists in the 1930s, and also by Gauchat in Switzerland in the first 1900s, unless n wiz received much pick uping in the West until much later. The study of the societal motivation of dustup veer, on the separate hand, has its strandation in the wave model of the late 19th century.The first attested use of the term sociolinguistics was by doubting Thomas Callan Hodson in the title of a 1939 paper. Sociolinguistics in the West first appeared in the 1960s and was pioneered by linguists such( prenominal)(prenominal) as William Labov in the US and common basil Bernstein in the UK Society A decree, or a human parliamentary procedure, is a group of large number think to separately other through unappeasable hearty inter endures, or a large affectionate grouping sharing the uniform geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political license and dominant cultural expectations.Human societies are characterized by patterns of consanguinitys ( friendly relations) between individuals who shell out a distinctive culture and institutions a given confederation whitethorn be described as the sum check of such races among its dowery members. In complaisant sciences, a fraternity invariably entails complaisant social stratification and/or dominance hierarchy. Insofar as it is collaborative, a connection empennage enable its members to benefit in shipway that would non otherwise be possible on an individual basis both individual and social (common) b enefits evoke thus be distinguished, or in legion(predicate) cases found to overlap.A family can also consist of like-minded populate governed by their give norms and set indoors a dominant, larger clubhouse. This is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used extensively at heart criminology. More broadly, a clubhouse may be described as an economic, social, or industrial infra complex body phonation, made up of a varied order of battle of individuals. Members of a society may be from polar ethnic groups. A society can be a tellicular ethnic group, such as the Saxons a nation state, such as Bhutan or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society.The word society may also refer to an organized voluntary association of race for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other answers. A society may even, though more than by means of metaphor, refer to a social organism such as an ant colony or any cooperative add up such as, f or manikin, in some formulations of artificial intelligence. style The word language has two meanings language as a full general concept and a language (a specialized linguistic schema, e. g. French). Languages other than side a great deal have two separate words for these distinct concepts.French for example uses the word langage for language as a concept and langue as the specific instance of language. When chating of language as a general concept, some(prenominal) different definitions can be used that stress different aspects of the phenomenon. Language, The amicable Mirror Language is a multi-faceted phenomenon. For Chomsky, language is the human essence, a mirror reflecting the natural creativity of the mind. However, language, with its rich variation, can also be seen as a mirror reflecting the miscellaneous nature of the society or the distinct locality of a culture.In her book, Language, the well-disposed Mirror (1982), Chaika states that language and society are so closely intertwined that it is impossible to understand one without the other (p. 1). The mutual dependence, mutual influence, and mutual shaping between language and society are inevitable. Similarly, language and culture are intimately interrelated. Instead of intellection of language and culture, Duranti (1997 336-7), amounting Harry Hoijer (1953), suggests that we should think of language in culture.He further states, the linguistic trunk interprets all other systems at heart the culture. To widen this idea, we could say that language is in us as much as we are in language. This statement reminds us of linguistic theory of theory of relativity contained at bottom the Whorfian Hypothesis, and at the same time suggests that language is a mirror of the society as well as culture . The following sections ordain human face at language from a socio-cultural perspective, and point out the consequences of this outlook on foreign language t severallying.Language from a Soci ocultural Perspective In notional linguistics, uniformity is the norm for a formal theory of language intends to reveal the regularity of forms and rules. Toward this end, linguistic data are limited to sentences (as the biggest linguistic units) taken from standard language. Generative Grammar is a perfect example of theoretical linguistics. By contrast, in the study of language in its sociocultural context, trump out represented by Sociolinguistics and Ethno linguistics, variation is the norm.As noted in passing, linguistic variation is better known as linguistic relativity. In the latest development of the discipline, there has been a pull-and-push tension between relativity and cosmopolitanity in the study of human language. In terms of degree, setting the chronological order aside, linguistic relativity is getly visible in Saussurean structuralism, quite an visible in the Bloomfieldian school, elevatedly idealized in the Humboldtian framework, strongly tyrannic in the Boasian tradition, and well naturalised in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.In our opinion, linguistic relativity is best captured by the neo-Bloomfieldian postulate E precise language is unique, structurally and culturally. breathing out back to the study of language in its sociocultural context, we believe that the well-nigh fruitful discussion of linguistic relativity should be related to linguistic world-wideity. The notion of universality is very popular in the Chosmkyan school, simply little popular in the Greenbergian school. The former, formulated in the theory of Universal Grammar, is fundamentally universality in micro-linguistics, mostly pertaining to abstract syntax.The latter, formulated in Universals and Typology (Comrie 1989), is universality measured crosswise universal parameters in phonology, morphology and syntax, resulting in typologies across languages. While the draw near in the former is more theory-driven and the approach in the latter is more data-driven, both the Chomskyan and Greenbergian schools are confined within the nation of context- foreswear linguistics. Therefore, both types of universality are inadequate for the purpose of explaining linguistic relativity in context bound linguistics.To raise the matter of language and society we should discuss the relativity from linguistic perspectives. To the best of our knowledge, the most appropriate universal parameters to explain linguistic relativity are those proposed by Clark & Clark (1977 516-17), a preferably obscure reference since they are not theoretical linguists unless scholars in Psycholinguistics. In fact, Clark & Clark do not give much elaboration to their parameters. despite the marginal position of the following parameters in linguistic theory, they should prove very useful in explaining linguistic relativity.Universals in Human Language a. either language is jibeed by youngsterren. b. Every language is spoken and understand by adults easily and efficiently. c . Every language embodies the ideas people normally destiny to convey. d. Every language government agencys as a communicative system in a sociocultural setting. These universal parameters seem to be observation-based and hence empirically verifiable and they are on par with the laymans definition of language, i. e. , language is a means of verbal communication.Not the structural feature but the practicable nature of language is presupposed in each of these parameters. The question is how do these universal parameters explain linguistic variation? Parameter (15) a implies that L1 acquisition is part of cultural transmission, or from the Chomskyan perspective the exposure of the LAD to primary language data. In acquiring their L1, barbarianren simultaneously acquire the sociocultural set. Parameter (15) b is true with mono-level languages, like Indonesian or incline, but not needfully true with multi-level languages, such as Balinese, Javan, or Sundanese.It is observed that t he mastery of Javanese varies considerably across speakers all of them are fluent speakers of the ngoko low form, but not many of them, particularly among younger generations, are fluent speakers of the krama high form. The picture of prosperous society can be seen from this variation and the upshot is language. Parameter (15) c is universally true at the functional level, but variation occurs at the structural level and in the manner of conveyance ideas. Parameter (15)d, like (15)c, is universally true with reference to a language as a alone communicative system, but languages vary structurally across cultures.The neo-Bloomfieldian postulate stated above (i. e. , every language is unique, structurally and culturally) modifies parameters (15)c and (15)d. Language as social network Language is a social phenomenon. Because language repeals naturally and inevitably in all human groups, linguists study not simply the sounds, grammars and meanings of the worlds languages, but also ho w these languages function in their social settings. Many linguists believe that humans are genetically programmed to learn language, but it still takes social contact to turn on the switch that makes us talk.Because our social networks tend to be complex, we all use multiple versions of our native language. We may speak differently when were with friends, relatives or st reachingrs when were at home, in school or on the job. The context of communication its purpose and audience determines whether our words are spoken or written, formal or informal, full of slang or technical jargon, off-color, colorful, or colorless. The social context of communication also affects the degree to which our language approaches or cancels the norms of correctness that our speech community deems appropriate to the occasion.Social contact and social conflict both shape language. Relative variegates in language collect to social channelizes Social reassigns produce changes in language. This affect s value in ways that have not been accurately understood. Language incorporates social values. However, social values are only the same as linguistic values when the society is a stable and unchanging one. Once society starts changing, then language change produces special effects. The use of language forms a closed loop, since it is modelled on the loop of projection and introjection.The difference between the two loops is simply that the mental one is based on individual meanings and the linguistic one on social values. This link between language and social values is one of identity, but only as long as society is noneffervescent or is evolving slowly. In a static society, the language is the society. Society is its language. The two are one. Language and society are two different systems since the construction within language centres on the static signifier whilst the structure within reason orientates on the high-octane signified.In times of stability the propelling struct ure of consciousness is put on hold, so linguistic values and social values are one. However, as society changes so the dynamic structure gradually comes into the foreground. Perhaps it is more accurate to put this effect the other way around as the dynamic structure of consciousness becomes accentuated, so society begins to change. Relative changes in society due to language changes Language contains traditional values this is what is implied in the ideas of social conditioning and social learning. In a static society, traditional values are unquestioned. then social learning takes the form of social conditioning. Social conditioning is the unquestioned or confused adherence to social norms, and occurs when society is taken to be self-referential. Society is the judge of its own needs. The only circumstance that normally breaks social conditioning in some degree is change. Therefore in a period of fast social change, chaos occurs as social norms are questioned, altered and perc hance even rejected. hot norms are slowly generated. This chaos ensures that society can no longer be regarded as creation self-referential.In this situation of chaos, language is grasped as being self-referential. Then language is no longer necessarily tied to social reality. In such times, values change as the values within language change and we may understand radical innovation in artistic genres. For example, the 19th century saw the focus on art for arts sake, along with science for sciences sake (neither art nor science were to be open of values external to themselves, such as social usefulness). Then the line of products of grappling with the new possibilities of language produced the dense symbolism of Mallarme.In twentieth-century literary theory the text has become autonomous and self-contained, and/or the reader has acquired total freedom in his interpretation of the text. Language creates society This relation is not apparent in static societies it is easy to assu me that society antedates language. still primitive societies are no exception. A primitive society is one where language use is primitive, and indicates hunter-gatherer tribes yet a tribe cannot be established until the necessary linguistic signs for authority are created.Society cannot be created until a group of people has some values in common. And values contract a language to embed them and articulate them. It is language that brings people in concert and slide bys them together. Language always precedes society. Even in small groups this relation holds for example, in a political discussion group the people come together because they already have, or want to learn, a common political language. any(prenominal) models to explain how language interacts with society Features of society affecting language use and response may be (more or less) Static e. g. thnicity, gender, class understate Changing e. g. information, age, social environment, attitudes and fashions Situ ational/contextual e. g. immediate social situation (workplace, home, recreation, mate group, perceived formality of situation) In studying this wide field of language theory, we will find it impossible to have detailed knowledge of all social categories. We should, however, have a range of examples from different nations as returnn above. We should also have a wide body of examples from a smaller range of categories especially any on which we may be examined.We moldiness(prenominal) be able to comment on language features (relevant to sociolinguistics) in these examples. Shirley Russell takes the first approach in Grammar, Structure and Style (OUP ISBN 0-19-831179-6), looking in depth at gender, advertising and law only. George Keith and John Shuttleworth Living Language Hodder (ISBN 0-340-67343-5) take the countenance they do not identify any topic within the general subject area, but give copybook examples of how to read a text that embodies attitudes to society in its lan guage use. Relationship between Education and SocietyTo show the relation of sociolinguistics with society from educational perspective we should discuss the relationship between education and society. We have seen education in particular as a means of cultural transmission from one generation to some other. The parents are the first teachers of the child and they still maintain an educative function throughout the early and formative years of the child. In most of the developing nations of the world, including Nigeria, parents are answerable for sending their children or wards to school.Since these nations are undergoing rapid socioeconomic and political changes, they witness special problems in evolving the appropriate education system, which will be able to produce the adequate hands needs in all the segments of the society. Schools are established in many societies of the world so as to indoctrinate in the pupils those skills which will afford them the opportunity of victor ious their rightful positions in the society but this function cannot be adequately accomplished without the assistance of the home because both the home and the school accomplish complimentary functions in the moral and intellectual development of the child.This means that the child cannot be educated in a vacuum or in isolation. Therefore, for a child to be educated there must be interaction between him and his physical and social environment. By this we mean that education is the development of personality. It is something which goes on both inside and outside the home and in the school. In other words, education is an activity of the whole community. This means that education is used in the transmission of the cultural values.One important implication of looking at education as the transmitter of cultural values is the fact that education can be influenced by the culture of the society in which it takes place. For this reason, one may infer that for a child to be educated, he m ust be influenced by his environment and, in turn, be capable of influencing it. And it is only by the concept of the continuous interaction of the individual and his society that the development of personality can be properly understood.We have noted above that education is a means through which the cultural values of a particular society are transmitted from one generation to another. Through this process, the society is able to achieve basic social conformity and ensure that its traditional values, beliefs, attitudes and aspirations are maintained and preserved. Clarks (1948) observed that a general knowledge and acceptance of the ideals and aims of our society is essential for all its citizens, and it must be achieved through education but in a form, which makes it compatible with freedom.So he reconciles the double purpose by saying that admittedly, the purpose of the educative society may be to make men conformable. scarce overmastering that must be the purpose to make men fr ee. A society needs a stable and dynamic set of values and a, unify purpose. It is when this is ascertained that meaningful economic, political and social programmes can be embarked upon for he overall benefits of the citizens. To be a fully developed person in such a society implies full and creative membership of it with powers to change it.Ottaway (1980) contended that the transmission of culture still remains a vital function, and is not to be dismissed as merely conservative in the sense of being old-fashioned. He further observed that our children are potentially the society of the future, which still belongs to the non-social community, and education in this respect can be regarded as a socialization of the young. Education depends on the total way of tone of a people in a society. This suggests that the type of education provided will differ from society to society.Besides, each society has her own norms, values and her own ideal persons who stand out clearly for the young er generations to emulate. Since all these societies are not the same, then it means that a man regarded as a hero in one society because of his contributions to educational development of the society may not be regarded as such in another society where education is not given priority in the intrigue of their daily activities. It, therefore, implies that children have different people to emulate in different societies.It is logical to expect that the type of education given in each society will change from time to time as the society changes. Many writers have argued that education is one of the causes of social change in the society, but another school of thought is of the opinion, that educational change tends to follow other social changes, rather than initiate them. Ottaway (1980) observed that ideas of change break in the minds of men often in the mind of a single man. Exceptional individuals invent new techniques and propound new values for their society.These ideas arise fr om the impact of men on his culture, but do not change the culture until they are shared and transmitted by a social group. In his own submission, Boocock (1972) noted that societies undergoing rapid social change or modernization have special problems in adapting the educational system to the manpower needs of the world. They often suffer shortages of persons with special kinds of learning in engineering science and other technical fields and may have difficulty in keeping persons with valuable skills once they have completed their education.Another area of the relationship between education and society is through the arrangement of the full(a) society into a hierarchical order that is, through the social structure in which education plays a prominent and significant intent in fixing educated individuals into social classes. Ottaway (1980) observed that education is the process of preparing people to fit into this complex social structure and to play particular social roles as m embers of more than one institutional group. Individuals have to learn to be forefathers or mothers, school teachers or civil servants, shopkeepers or priests.They have to learn to keep the law, to understand how they are governed and to be prepared to try and change the social moves when they see that they can be improved. Education as a social phenomenon is also concerned with the preparation of the child for his future occupation in life. This is one of the main economic functions of education and this is in the quest of both the society and the individual. Through education an individual knows the structure of the society and the different types of relationships that exist among those structures in the society.The child is taught how to perform different roles within the social structure in the society. These roles are inter-related. For example, the role of a father is a relational role a father could be a son to another person. So education allows the child to perform his ro le adequately within the social structure in the society. In addition, the child is able to understand the network of inter-relationships among the different social institutions that make up the society. Also of importance are the different functions that are performed by each social institution in the society.Like an individual, each institution has definite functions to perform in the society and the functions of each institution differ from one to another even though they are complimentary. Another aspect of the relationship between education and society is in the area of social interaction. Social interaction may be defined as any relation between people and groups, which changes the behaviour of the people in the group. There is a need for social interaction by the child before he could acquire the culture of his society.This interaction in the society is therefore part of the childs education, provided that, that type of interaction brings about positive changes in the childs behaviour in a right direction as required by the educational system. One important point here is that the child has been taking part in group interaction long before he starts to attend school and the most common among these group interactions are within the family and the peergroup. These groups in which the child interacts give him the opportunity to learn from the wider circles in the society.From his social contacts, he learns his roles in different groups and this influences his personality development. Many sociologists have appreciated the relationship between education and society and have concluded that the two are so interrelated. That one cannot draw any line of demarcation between them. It has been observed that the educational system of any nation must be based on the needs and demands of the society and that any educational system that fails to meet the needs, aspirations and ambitions of the society is not relevant and is bound to fail.The educational system of any n ation is concerned with, the transmitting of the cultural values of nowadays to those who will live in the world of tomorrow, and contents of education must somehow strike a balance. Dubey et. al. (1984) observed that a good educational system, in all its full substance and ramifications, is related to the level of culture, industrial development, rate of urbanization, political organization, religious climate, family structure, stratification and other institutions of the total social system.Finally, education has to fulfill both the individuals needs and those of the society and must keep pace with other sub-systems in the society, as both variables are inter-related. miserliness affects by language and society By trying to detect take the stand of the mien of the principle of linguistic economy in Early modern English works, it was noted that most of the texts scrutinized and dealt with in this paper present the English language as a round-eyed language to learn, made up of easy expressions and governed by few grammatical rules, which have undergone, in the course of many centuries, an ven more conspicuous simplification the English Language is perhaps of all the present European languages by much the most simple in its form and construction This characteristic results from gradual linguistic changes, but it can also be traced back to the very nature of the English language and its speakers English people are depicted as savers (we are a people very sparing of our words, and even of our syllables White 176129), who avoid excessive efforts to communicate we have a fondness for Abbreviations, and that fills our language with many Monosyllables (Collyer 173568).Moreover, the monosyllabic nature of the lexicon is often underlined monosyllables are very numerous in our English Tongue, that. s why it is an easy Tongue to write and to speak (Aickin 169330). A lot of remarks concern the use of several abbreviations, or the inadequacy of morphological endings that usually indicate syntactic connections, or again the morality and elegance of its construction, all aspects that indicate economy and saving as beneficial, around peculiar characteristics of the language.Some of the most important aspects coming out of the summary of the texts will be now considered and investigated, in order to emphasize the presence or the absence of the concept of economy in the observations collected the related comments will be classified by linguistic levels. Conclusion The whole discussion brought the vicegerency of language, society, economy, education, culture and so on among them. One is representative of another. boilersuit contributions make the society and sociolinguistics analyze the role of each individual element.We can strongly take apart to accept sociolinguistics as the mirror of the society. REFERENCES Wikipedia, the free world encyclopedia. Ronald Wardhaugh An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Becker, Alton L. 1995. Beyond Translatio n Essays toward a Modern Philology. Ann spindle The University of Michigan Press. Brown, Douglas H. 1994. Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness Some universals in language use.Cambridge Cambridge University Press Chaika, Elaine. 1982. Language the Social Mirror. capital of the United Kingdom Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Chaudhary, Nandita. 2004. listen to Culture Constructing Reality from Everyday Talk. New Delhi Sage Publications. Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Language and perspicacity (Enlarged Edition). San Diego Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. Clark, Herbert H. & Clark, Eve V. 1977. Psychology and Language An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. San Diego Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. Comrie, Bernard. 989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (second edition. ) The University of Chicago Press. Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anth ropology. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Finochiaro, Mary. 1974. English as a bit Language From Theory to Practice. New York Regents Publishing Co. Blakemore, K. and Cooksey, B. (1981). A Sociology of Education for Africa. capital of the United Kingdom George Allen & Unwin. Boocock, S. (1972). An Introduction to the Sociology of Learning. New York Houghton Mifflin. Clarke, F. (1948).Freedom in the Educative Society capital of the United Kingdom University Press. Dubey, D. L. et. al (1984). An Introduction to the Sociology of Nigerian Education. London Macmillan. Durkheim, E. (1961). Moral Education, English Translation. London Free Press. Havighurst, R. J. (1960). Education, Social Mobility and Social Change in Four Societies. Homewood, leash Dorsey Press. The assignment prepared and submitted by the following students- SL Full Name locoweed Full ID No. 01 Md.Harun-or Rashid quaternary BAEEM04081007 02 S. M. Ahsanul Karim 4th BAEEM04081004 03 Khandakar Mahbul Al am 4th BAEEM04081004 04 Iqbal Hosen 5th BAEEM05082004 05 ArshadulHaque sixth BAEEM06083001 06 Kamruzzaman 6th BAERM05082078 07 Nazrul Islam 4th BAERM01081004 08 Md Abul Kalam Azad seventh BAEEM07091013 09 Md.Mahfuzur Rahman Hydar 8th BAEEM08092003 10 Md. Abu Taher 7th BAEEM07091007 11 Md. Niaz Morshed 7th BAEEM07091060 12 Md. Faruk Hossain 7th BAEEM07091023 13 Md.Mun-uddin 7th BAEEM07091006 14 Rafiqul Islam Akanda 10th BAERM10101015 15 Mohammad Mamun Miah 10th BAERM10101046 16 Md.Asad Ullah 10th BAERM10101045 17 Md. Rosul Amin 4th BAEEM04081002 18 Md.Ujjal Sheikh 6th BAEEM06083005 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27