essay about language in society

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Speaking, writing and reading are integral to everyday life, where language is the primary tool for expression and communication. Studying how people use language – what words and phrases they unconsciously choose and combine – can help us better understand ourselves and why we behave the way we do.

Linguistics scholars seek to determine what is unique and universal about the language we use, how it is acquired and the ways it changes over time. They consider language as a cultural, social and psychological phenomenon.

“Understanding why and how languages differ tells about the range of what is human,” said Dan Jurafsky , the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor in Humanities and chair of the Department of Linguistics in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford . “Discovering what’s universal about languages can help us understand the core of our humanity.”

The stories below represent some of the ways linguists have investigated many aspects of language, including its semantics and syntax, phonetics and phonology, and its social, psychological and computational aspects.

Understanding stereotypes

Stanford linguists and psychologists study how language is interpreted by people. Even the slightest differences in language use can correspond with biased beliefs of the speakers, according to research.

One study showed that a relatively harmless sentence, such as “girls are as good as boys at math,” can subtly perpetuate sexist stereotypes. Because of the statement’s grammatical structure, it implies that being good at math is more common or natural for boys than girls, the researchers said.

Language can play a big role in how we and others perceive the world, and linguists work to discover what words and phrases can influence us, unknowingly.

How well-meaning statements can spread stereotypes unintentionally

New Stanford research shows that sentences that frame one gender as the standard for the other can unintentionally perpetuate biases.

Algorithms reveal changes in stereotypes

New Stanford research shows that, over the past century, linguistic changes in gender and ethnic stereotypes correlated with major social movements and demographic changes in the U.S. Census data.

Exploring what an interruption is in conversation

Stanford doctoral candidate Katherine Hilton found that people perceive interruptions in conversation differently, and those perceptions differ depending on the listener’s own conversational style as well as gender.

Cops speak less respectfully to black community members

Professors Jennifer Eberhardt and Dan Jurafsky, along with other Stanford researchers, detected racial disparities in police officers’ speech after analyzing more than 100 hours of body camera footage from Oakland Police.

How other languages inform our own

People speak roughly 7,000 languages worldwide. Although there is a lot in common among languages, each one is unique, both in its structure and in the way it reflects the culture of the people who speak it.

Jurafsky said it’s important to study languages other than our own and how they develop over time because it can help scholars understand what lies at the foundation of humans’ unique way of communicating with one another.

“All this research can help us discover what it means to be human,” Jurafsky said.

Stanford PhD student documents indigenous language of Papua New Guinea

Fifth-year PhD student Kate Lindsey recently returned to the United States after a year of documenting an obscure language indigenous to the South Pacific nation.

Students explore Esperanto across Europe

In a research project spanning eight countries, two Stanford students search for Esperanto, a constructed language, against the backdrop of European populism.

Chris Manning: How computers are learning to understand language​

A computer scientist discusses the evolution of computational linguistics and where it’s headed next.

Stanford research explores novel perspectives on the evolution of Spanish

Using digital tools and literature to explore the evolution of the Spanish language, Stanford researcher Cuauhtémoc García-García reveals a new historical perspective on linguistic changes in Latin America and Spain.

Language as a lens into behavior

Linguists analyze how certain speech patterns correspond to particular behaviors, including how language can impact people’s buying decisions or influence their social media use.

For example, in one research paper, a group of Stanford researchers examined the differences in how Republicans and Democrats express themselves online to better understand how a polarization of beliefs can occur on social media.

“We live in a very polarized time,” Jurafsky said. “Understanding what different groups of people say and why is the first step in determining how we can help bring people together.”

Analyzing the tweets of Republicans and Democrats

New research by Dora Demszky and colleagues examined how Republicans and Democrats express themselves online in an attempt to understand how polarization of beliefs occurs on social media.

Examining bilingual behavior of children at Texas preschool

A Stanford senior studied a group of bilingual children at a Spanish immersion preschool in Texas to understand how they distinguished between their two languages.

Predicting sales of online products from advertising language

Stanford linguist Dan Jurafsky and colleagues have found that products in Japan sell better if their advertising includes polite language and words that invoke cultural traditions or authority.

Language can help the elderly cope with the challenges of aging, says Stanford professor

By examining conversations of elderly Japanese women, linguist Yoshiko Matsumoto uncovers language techniques that help people move past traumatic events and regain a sense of normalcy.

• Content Guidelines
• Privacy Policy

Receive your Favorite Topics right in your Inbox.

Language and its importance to society | essay.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Essay on Language and its Importance to Society!

Language and Society

From what has been written so far it is clear that man is possessed of natural sociality. His disposition to band together with his fellows for lower or for higher purposes is one of his fundamental characteristics. To understand his fellows and to be understood by them, men were impelled to the production of language without which they could not communicate with each other.

The desire of communication was the main cause of language making. Nowhere has the old proverb “Necessity is the mother of invention” received a better illustration than in the history of language; it was to satisfy the wants of daily life that the faculty of speech was first exercised. Charles Winick has defined language as “a system of arbitrary vocal symbols, used to express communicable thoughts and feelings and enabling the members of a social group or speech community to interact and to co-operate.” It is the medium of oral expression.

The Origin of Language:

Language is an institution:

Language is a product not of one cause but of several factors. It is, in fact a social creation, a human invention an unconscious invention of a whole community. As Professor Whitney has observed, it is as much an institution as a body of unwritten laws, and like these it has been called forth by the needs of developing society.”

The linguists are not in a position to form any conjectures as to the precise point in the history of man at which the germs of speech should have appeared, and the time which they should have occupied in the successive steps of their development. That the process was a slow one, all agree.

To quote Whitney, “Language making is a mere incident of social life and of cultural growth. It is as great an error to hold that at some period men are engaged in making and laying up expressions for their own future use and that of their descendants, as that, at another period, succession shall find expression. Each period provides just what it has occasion for, nothing more. The production of language is a continuous process; it varies in rate and kind with the circumstances and habits of the speaking community, but it never ceases; there was never a time when it was more truly going than at present.”

Thus language is not the creation of one person or of one period but it is an institution, on which hundreds of generations and countless individual workers have worked.

Three Instrumentalities of Expression :

The traditional instrumentalities of expression are gestures, grimace and tone. Gesture means the changes of the position of the various parts of the body, especially of the most mobile parts, the arms and hands; grimace means the change of expression of features of the countenance, and tone is the utterance of or the production of audible sound.”

These are also termed natural means of expression. In the first stages of communicative expression, all these three were used together, and in fact, there can never have been a period or stage in which all the three instrumentalities were not put to use together. They are used even today. It is very interesting to know what signs or what facial expressions were used for words.”

James gave a list of 104 signs employed by the North American Indians in the place of words. Darkness, for instance, was indicated by extending the hands horizontally forwards and backwards and passing one over the other so as to touch it once or twice; a man by a finger held up vertically; running by first doubling the arm upon itself and then throwing the elbow backwards and forwards. Out of these three instrumentalities of expression voice or tone has won to itself the chief and almost exclusive part in communication.

How long man, after he came into such being as he now is physically and intellectually, continued to communicate with signs is a question which is idle to try to answer even conjecturally. How the first scanty and formless signs have been changed into the immense variety and fullness of existing speech, it is impossible to point out because nearly the whole process is hidden in the darkness of an impenetrable past.

Probably the man had to undergo the same labour in learning the speech which a child has now to undergo in learning its mother-tongue with this difference that primitive man was a grown child who painfully elaborated a language for himself whereas the individual child has but to acquire a language already formed.

The Importance of Language :

Language is a constituent element of civilization. It raised man from a savage state to the plane which he was capable of reaching. Man could not become man except by language. An essential point in which man differs from animals is that man alone is the sole possessor of language. No doubt animals also exhibit certain degree of power of communication but that is not only inferior in degree to human language, but also radically diverse in kind from it.

Language is one of the most marked, conspicuous, as well as fundamentally characteristic of the faculties of man. The importance of language for man and society cannot be minimised. As a personal thing, language is not only a mode of communication between individuals but is also a way for the expression of their personality.

Sociologically, language moulds the individual from infancy. The child comes to know most of the things of the world through language.

It is an important attribute of his personality. Its importance to the society lies in the following:

(i) Easy Social Contact:

Firstly, it makes social contact easy. Society, as we have seen, is a web of social relationships which imply development of social contacts among the individuals with language contacts become easy to be established because men can easily exchange their ideas. According to E. H. Sturtevant, “A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by which members of a social group cooperate and interact.

(ii) Culture-Carrier:

Secondly, language helps or hinders the spread of culture. Ideas require language. Sometimes an idea or concept is hard to translate because the language has no words with which to express it. We are facing this difficulty in our country because Hindi, our national language does not possess terms for a number of English words used in sciences.

The Hindi linguists have coined some words to replace English as a medium of instruction. These coined words are, however, more difficult to understand and remember than the English words. Language conserves our culture which it passes to posterity. Language may be called culture-carrier.

The culture that exists at a given time and place has come from the past and is the result of accumulation of things, attitudes, ideas, knowledge, error and prejudice. The animals as we have seen are incapable of speech except for a few sounds and so incapable of having any culture and civilization. It is man alone who through language has acquired a high degree of culture and civilization. As pointed out above it raised man from savage state to a noble state.

(iii) Easy Conveyance of Ideas:

Thirdly, language gives a capacity for conveying ideas about a great variety of things. In times when there was no language the ideas were transmitted by signs or cries which were not easy to interpret. Man felt great difficulty in the clear expression of states of emotion.

There was no uniformity of these signs or cries. Some of these signs were quite complicated, for instance, ‘man’ was denoted- by extending the forefinger, the rest of the hand being shut, and drawing a line with it from the pit of the stomach down as far as can be conveniently reached.

But with the invention of language now a number of ideas and states of emotion can be conveyed in an easy and simple way. A language that could transmit an idea such as “the flood came and destroyed the houses” through delicate variations in sound was an achievement far superior Lo the transmission of ideas by a variety of cries.

Thus importance of language to society is clear. It has led man from mere clumsy animal to a human being in the real sense of the word. It has simplified the conveyance of ideas, smoothed social contacts, conserved our culture and transmitted it Lo posterity. In fact, language is very valuable possession which has elevated man from the level of a savage to the plane of the ‘Lord of Creation’.

Need for a Universal Language:

The people of different parts of the world speak different languages. Not only that, people living in the same territory use different languages or speak different dialects. These differences in the language of the people of the world have served to limit inter-group communication and perpetuate social isolation.

Since language is a great medium of communication the assumption has been made that if the people of the world have the same language it may help a great deal in removing the culture barriers and bring the people of the world nearer to each other thereby serving the cause of international understanding and cooperation.

No doubt, a universal language may help in the cultural unification of the people of the world and remove misunderstanding that grow out of inability to communicate effectively, but the practical difficulty is to find out such a language.

The proponents of different languages claim that ‘their language is better than any other language and that it alone provides a more efficient means of communication that it is more explicit, more logical, more flexible and far more easier to master.

Efforts have also been made to improve the existing languages, to make them more simplified and logical. But as yet no universal single language has been agreed upon and consequently the linguistic differences continue. It is also difficult for any people to learn more readily any other language than the mother-tongue.

Related Articles:

• The Importance of Socialization in Society
• Importance of ICT in Knowledge Society Disparities between and within Countries
• Importance of Secondary Group for Society
• Importance of Primary Group for the Society

Upload and Share Your Article:

• Description *
• Author Name *
• Author Email Id. (required) *
• File Drop files here or

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Upload Your Knowledge on Sociology:

Privacy overview.

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Language — The Power of Language: How Words Shape Our World

The Power of Language: How Words Shape Our World

• Categories: Language

About this sample

Words: 795 |

Published: Sep 7, 2023

Words: 795 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The essence of language and communication, the complex relationship between language and power, using language to promote transparency, accountability, and equity.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1037 words

2 pages / 806 words

1 pages / 490 words

2 pages / 1069 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Language

Native language is often overlooked as something that people use instinctively, but it actually plays a crucial role in shaping one's identity (Norton, 2019). The connection between language and identity is not only direct [...]

The English language is widely regarded as the global lingua franca, serving as a common means of communication for people from diverse linguistic backgrounds. However, despite its widespread use, the English language presents a [...]

Vygotsky's theory of speech, also known as the sociocultural theory, has had a significant impact on the field of developmental psychology. This theory emphasizes the role of social interaction and cultural context in the [...]

Language learning has become an essential tool for individuals to succeed in their personal and professional lives. As a multilingual AI language model, I understand the importance of language learning firsthand. In this essay, [...]

Throughout history the English language has changed dramatically, and to this day continues evolving. The Modern English language spoken today is derived from Old English, which was spoken for centuries until around 1100. As [...]

The qualitative study of Landmark and her team was participated by Norwegian physicians and patients as they explored series of recordings of physician’s prescribed therapy to their respective patients. Through these records, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Language

Introduction to Language

Language, the cornerstone of human civilization, is the conduit through which thoughts, emotions, and ideas are conveyed and understood. Defined as a communication system consisting of sounds, words, and gestures with agreed-upon meanings, language embodies the essence of human interaction and expression. Its importance transcends mere words; it encapsulates cultural heritage, societal norms, and individual identity. This essay sets out to study the incredible power and development of language. Language weaves the complex tapestry of the human experience, changing our reality in subtle and de-subtly deep lyrical roots to its modern expressions.

Historical Perspective

The historical perspective of language provides a fascinating insight into its origins, development, and pivotal role in shaping human civilization.

Watch our Demo Courses and Videos

Valuation, Hadoop, Excel, Mobile Apps, Web Development & many more.

• Origins of Language: The quest to understand the origins of language remains a subject of intense debate among linguists, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists. Theories such as the Bow-wow theory (imitation of natural sounds), the Pooh-Pooh theory (emotional outbursts), and the Ding-dong theory (natural vocalizations) offer speculative explanations. Evolutionary studies, particularly those examining the development of the human brain and vocal apparatus, provide valuable insights into the emergence of language among early hominids.
• Development of Written Language: Early forms of written communication , such as cave paintings, petroglyphs, and pictograms, served as rudimentary means of recording information and transmitting knowledge. Introducing writing systems like cuneiform, hieroglyphics, and the alphabet laid the foundation for advancing human civilization, completely changing how people preserved and shared knowledge.
• Language’s Role in Human Evolution: Researchers believe that language conferred evolutionary advantages, facilitating cooperation, social cohesion, and the transmission of cultural knowledge. The ability to communicate complex ideas and coordinate group activities enhanced early humans’ ability to survive and thrive in challenging environments.
• Influence of Migration and Contact: Human migration and contact between different linguistic groups have profoundly influenced the evolution of language. Contact between speakers of various languages led to linguistic borrowing, language mixing, and the emergence of pidgin and Creole languages. The spread of empires, trade networks, and cultural exchanges facilitated the diffusion of languages across vast geographic regions, giving rise to language families and linguistic diversity.
• Language Standardization and Codification: The standardization and codification of language emerged as societies became more complex and interconnected. Language standardization involves the establishment of norms, rules, and conventions governing grammar, spelling, pronunciation, and vocabulary. The development of dictionaries, grammar guides, and linguistic academies played a crucial role in promoting linguistic uniformity and preserving the integrity of languages in written and formal contexts.
• Technological Advancements and Language Evolution: Technological advancements, such as the printing press, telecommunication networks, and the internet, have revolutionized language use, dissemination, and preservation. Introducing social media, machine translation technology, and digital communication platforms have overcome language barriers, enabling global communication.

Functions of Language

The functions of language encompass a wide array of roles and purposes that language serves in human communication and interaction. Here are some essential functions of language:

• Communication : At its core, language serves as a tool for communication, allowing individuals to convey thoughts, ideas, emotions, and intentions to others. People share information, exchange opinions, and interact socially through spoken, written, or signed language.
• Expression of Thoughts and Emotions : Language allows individuals to express their thoughts, feelings, desires, and experiences. Whether through spoken words, written text, facial expressions, or body language, language enables individuals to articulate their inner world and connect with others on an emotional level.
• Cultural Transmission : Language plays a crucial role in transmitting culture from one generation to another. Through language, cultural values, traditions, beliefs, stories, myths, and rituals are passed down orally or through written texts, preserving and perpetuating the collective heritage of a community or society.
• Social Interaction and Relationship Building : Language is central to social interaction and relationship building. It enables individuals to establish connections, form bonds, and develop interpersonal relationships. Language facilitates collaboration, cooperation, negotiation, and conflict resolution in various social contexts.
• Cognitive Development : Language is fundamental to cognitive development and intellectual growth. Through language acquisition and usage, individuals develop cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Language also shapes how people perceive the world, organize their thoughts, and make sense of their experiences.
• Instrumental Function : Language is instrumental in enabling individuals to accomplish specific goals or tasks. Language allows people to communicate their intentions and achieve desired outcomes in various practical situations, whether it involves giving instructions, asking questions, making requests, or providing information.
• Identity and Self-Expression : Language contributes to constructing individual and group identities. It reflects linguistic diversity, regional variations, social identities, and cultural affiliations. Language choices, accents, dialects, and language styles often mark personal identity and social belonging, shaping how individuals perceive themselves and others.
• Artistic and Literary Expression : Language is a medium for artistic and literary expression. Through poetry, literature, music, theater, and other forms of creative writing and performance, language becomes a vehicle for aesthetic appreciation, emotional expression, and imaginative exploration of human experiences.
• Preservation of Knowledge and History : Language is instrumental in preserving knowledge, history, and collective memory. Written texts, oral traditions, historical documents, and archival records document human achievements, discoveries, events, and cultural milestones, ensuring they are remembered and passed on to future generations.

Evolution of Language

The evolution of language is an intricate journey that traces back to the dawn of humanity , from primitive vocalizations to the intricate linguistic systems we utilize today. The transition from mere grunts and gestures to complex languages like English, Mandarin, or Spanish is a testament to the remarkable capacity of the human mind and the transformative power of communication. Here’s a glimpse into the evolutionary milestones of language:

• Pre-Linguistic Communication: Early humans likely communicated through gestures, facial expressions, and primal vocalizations, creating rudimentary non-verbal communication. Grunts, cries, and simple sounds served as essential signals for survival needs, expressing pain, pleasure, hunger, or danger.
• Proto-Language and Proto-Words: The development of proto-language involves using more structured vocalizations and gestures to convey specific meanings. Proto-words, resembling single-syllable vocalizations, emerged to represent concrete objects, actions, or concepts, laying the foundation for a more organized communication system.
• Vocal Imitation and Mimicry: As early humans evolved, the capacity for vocal imitation and mimicry expanded, allowing for more nuanced communication. Mimicking environmental sounds and animal calls helped describe specific situations, enhancing the richness and expressiveness of communication.
• Emergence of Grammar and Syntax: A structured communication system became essential in developing more complex societies. The emergence of grammar and syntax allowed for the construction of more elaborate and precise messages, enabling individuals to convey relationships between ideas and express complex thoughts.
• Creation of Words and Vocabulary: As societies became more sophisticated, a larger vocabulary arose to accommodate the expanding range of human experiences and knowledge. Words began to represent not only concrete objects and actions but also abstract concepts, emotions, and relationships, contributing to the richness of language.
• Cultural Influence and Language Diversification: Cultural interactions, migrations, and trade led to the diversification of languages. Different communities developed unique linguistic features, accents, and dialects, giving rise to the many languages spoken worldwide today.
• Written Language and Standardization: The development of writing systems marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of language. Writing allowed for the preservation and dissemination of information over time and space, leading to the standardization of languages through grammar rules, dictionaries, and formalized structures.
• Globalization and Language Exchange: Globalization and technological advancements have increased language contact and exchange in the modern era. The world’s interconnectedness has led to the adopting of loanwords, shared expressions, and the blending of linguistic elements, creating a dynamic and interconnected linguistic landscape.
• The Evolution of Greetings and Politeness: The evolution of language is not just about vocabulary and syntax but also about social dynamics and etiquette. Simple greetings like “hello” or “goodbye” reflect evolved social norms and conventions. Politeness strategies, such as honorifics, deferential language, and courteous expressions, are crucial in maintaining social harmony and respect in diverse linguistic communities.

Forms and Structures

Forms and structures in language refer to the systematic organization and components that make up a language system. They encompass various linguistic elements and rules governing how words, phrases, and sentences are structured and combined to convey meaning. Here are the key components of forms and structures in language:

• Phonetics and Phonology: Phonetics studies the physical characteristics of speech sounds, including their production, transmission, and perception. Phonology focuses on sounds’ abstract, cognitive aspects within a particular language system, examining patterns, rules, and relationships governing speech sounds. Phonological systems, which differ between languages and dialects, are groups of phonemes, the smallest units of sound that determine meaning in a language.
• Morphology: Morphology studies the structure and formation of words, including morphemes, the smallest units of meaning in language. Bound morphemes, which need to be joined to other morphemes to communicate meaning (e.g., “-s” for plural), and free morphemes, can function as words on their own (like “dog”). Morphological processes, such as affixation, compounding, derivation, and inflection, govern how morphemes are combined to create words and convey grammatical information.
• Syntax: The concepts and rules guiding the construction of meaningful phrases, clauses, and sentences are known as syntax. Sentence structure involves word order, sentence types (e.g., declarative, interrogative, imperative), and grammatical relationships among words (e.g., subject-verb-object). Syntax also encompasses syntactic categories, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and conjunctions, and their syntactic roles in sentence formation.
• Semantics: The study of meaning in language, including how words, phrases, and sentences connect to the outside world, is known as semantics. Semantic analysis examines word meanings, lexical ambiguity, word sense disambiguation, and semantic relationships (e.g., synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy). Pragmatics, a subfield of semantics, focuses on the use of language in context, including implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and conversational implicature.
• Discourse Structure: Discourse structure refers to the organization and coherence of extended stretches of language beyond the sentence level. Discourse markers, cohesive devices, and discourse strategies help structure and link individual sentences into coherent paragraphs, conversations, narratives, and discourses. Discourse analysis studies how people communicate in different discourse contexts using language to express attitudes, negotiate meaning, communicate information, and accomplish communicative goals.

Language Acquisition

The process by which people pick up and use language is known as language acquisition. It is a remarkable and complex feat that occurs naturally in humans during early childhood. The study of language acquisition involves examining how individuals progress from being non-verbal infants to proficient language users.

1. Pre-linguistic Stage

During the pre-linguistic stage, infants engage in various vocalizations and perceptual activities that lay the foundation for language development:

• Cooing and Babbling (0-6 months): Infants begin by producing non-specific vowel sounds (cooing) and later progress to producing repetitive sequences of consonant-vowel combinations (babbling). This experimentation with sounds is crucial for developing control over the vocal apparatus and laying the groundwork for speech.
• Categorical Perception: Infants start categorizing and discriminating speech sounds relevant to their native language. They become attuned to the meaningful phonetic distinctions within their linguistic environment, setting the stage for language-specific speech perception.

2. Single Word or Holophrastic Stage (9-18 months):

The transition to the single-word stage marks the onset of meaningful language production:

• First Words: Children produce their first recognizable words, typically referring to objects, people, actions, or familiar routines in their immediate environment.
• Holophrases: These early words often function as holophrases, where a single word conveys a complex meaning or represents an entire idea. For example, “milk” may signify a request for milk, a desire for a bottle, or an observation of spilled milk.

3. Two-Word Stage (18-24 months)

The emergence of two-word combinations marks a significant milestone in syntactic development:

• Emergence of Syntax: Children begin to combine words to form simple two-word utterances, such as “more juice,” “big dog,” or “mommy book.” These combinations reflect basic syntactic structures and demonstrate an understanding of word order and grammatical relationships.
• Telegraphic Speech: Utterances in this stage often resemble telegraphic speech, where speakers include only essential content words while omitting function words and grammatical markers.

4. Early Multi-word and Sentential Stage (24+ months)

As language development progresses, children’s vocabulary expands, and they begin to construct more elaborate sentences:

• Rapid Vocabulary Growth: Children experience a vocabulary explosion, acquiring new words rapidly and demonstrating an increasing ability to express complex ideas and concepts.
• Grammatical Development: There is a gradual refinement of grammatical structures, including verb conjugation, plurals, pronouns, and prepositions. Children start to produce more grammatically complete and syntactically varied sentences.

5. Complex Sentences and Language Refinement (3-5 years)

During the preschool years, children continue to refine their language skills and develop more sophisticated linguistic abilities:

• Development of Complex Syntax: Children begin to use more complex sentence structures, including compound and complex sentences. They demonstrate an understanding of grammatical relationships and syntactic rules.
• Mastery of Basic Grammar: There is a gradual mastery of basic grammar, including the accurate use of verb tense, articles, pronouns, and word order. Children’s speech becomes increasingly grammatically correct and syntactically mature.

6. Mature Language Use (5+ years)

By the time children reach school age, they have typically achieved full linguistic competence:

• Full Command of Language: Children demonstrate a sophisticated understanding and use of their native language across various contexts and communicative settings. They can comprehend and produce complex texts, engage in meaningful conversations, and express abstract ideas.
• Metalinguistic Awareness: Children develop metalinguistic awareness, allowing them to consciously reflect on and manipulate language. They become aware of language as a system with its rules and conventions, enabling them to discuss language, analyze its structure, and solve linguistic problems.

Language and Society

Let’s break down the relationship between language and society:

• Language as a Marker of Identity : An essential component of individual and collective identity is language. Dialects, accents, and linguistic patterns often signify regional, cultural, ethnic, or social affiliations. The language(s) individuals speak can influence how they perceive themselves and are perceived by others, shaping their sense of belonging and cultural identity within society.
• Language and Social Stratification : Societies often exhibit linguistic hierarchies and power dynamics, where specific languages or dialects are associated with prestige, power, and social status, while others are marginalized or stigmatized. Linguistic discrimination can reinforce existing social inequalities and contribute to the marginalization of linguistic minorities or speakers of non-standard varieties.
• Language as a Medium of Social Interaction : Language plays a central role in facilitating social interaction, communication, and collaboration among members of society. It lets people communicate their ideas, feelings, attitudes, and intentions; it also helps them traverse a variety of social circumstances and scenarios and negotiate social relationships. Language norms and conventions govern how individuals interact and communicate within their social environments.
• Language and Cultural Transmission : Language serves as a primary vehicle for the transmission and preservation of cultural heritage, traditions, values, beliefs, and knowledge within society. Through language, cultural narratives, myths, folklore, rituals, and oral histories are passed down from generation to generation, shaping collective identity and fostering a sense of continuity and belonging among community members.
• Language and Power Dynamics : Language is intricately linked to societal power dynamics, influencing access to resources, opportunities, and social mobility. Dominant languages often serve as instruments of power and privilege, facilitating access to education, employment, government services, and political representation. Linguistic policies and practices can reflect and perpetuate existing power structures, marginalizing linguistic minorities and reinforcing social hierarchies.
• Language and Social Cohesion : Language promotes social cohesion, solidarity, and community integration. Shared linguistic codes and communication norms facilitate mutual understanding, cooperation, and collaboration among diverse individuals and groups. Language also functions as a tool for building social networks, fostering interpersonal relationships, and strengthening social bonds across different cultural, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries.
• Language and Social Change : Language is dynamic and constantly evolving in response to social, cultural, technological, and historical factors. Language usage, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation changes reflect broader societal shifts, innovations, and transformations. Language can shape and reflect social change, serving as a barometer of evolving societal attitudes, values, and ideologies.

Language and Technology

Language and technology have become deeply intertwined in modern society, shaping the way we communicate, learn, and interact with the world. Here’s an exploration of the relationship between language and technology:

• Machine Translation: Machine translation systems, such as Google Translate and Microsoft Translator, use algorithms to translate text and speech from one language to another automatically. These tools facilitate cross-cultural communication, enabling individuals to overcome language barriers and access information in multiple languages.
• Natural Language Processing (NLP): Natural language processing is a branch of artificial intelligence that focuses on enabling computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language. NLP applications power virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa , and Google Assistant , which respond to voice commands and engage in natural language dialogue with users.
• Language Learning Apps: Language learning apps and software, such as Duolingo, Rosetta Stone, and Babbel, provide interactive platforms for users to acquire new languages or improve their language skills. These apps offer a variety of exercises, quizzes, and interactive lessons tailored to individual learning styles and proficiency levels.
• Voice Recognition Technology: Voice recognition technology enables devices and applications to understand and interpret spoken commands and input. Voice-activated assistants, speech-to-text dictation software, and voice-controlled interfaces streamline tasks and enhance accessibility for users with disabilities.
• Language Preservation and Documentation: Digital technologies are crucial in preserving and documenting endangered languages and linguistic heritage. Online archives, multimedia databases, and language documentation tools enable linguists and communities to record, analyze, and safeguard linguistic diversity and cultural knowledge.
• Social Media and Multilingual Communication: Social media platforms facilitate multilingual communication and cultural exchange among users from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Users can share content, engage in conversations, and connect with others in their native language or in languages they are learning, fostering global connections and cross-cultural understanding.
• Language Processing in Search Engines: Search engines employ language processing techniques to understand user queries and deliver relevant search results. Semantic search algorithms analyze the meaning and context of words and phrases, improving search accuracy and user experience.
• Language Localization in Software and Content: Software developers and content creators use language localization techniques to adapt digital products and content for different linguistic and cultural contexts. Localization involves translating user interfaces, software documentation, and multimedia content into multiple languages to make them accessible to global audiences.
• Augmented Reality (AR) Language Learning: Augmented reality applications enhance language learning experiences by overlaying digital content onto the physical environment. AR language learning apps provide immersive and interactive lessons, allowing users to practice language skills in real-world contexts and scenarios.
• Ethical Considerations: Using language technology raises ethical concerns about privacy, data security, bias, and cultural sensitivity. It is essential to address these ethical considerations and ensure that language technologies respect users’ rights, uphold linguistic diversity, and promote inclusive communication practices.

Challenges and Controversies

Challenges and controversies abound in the intersection of language and technology, reflecting the complex nature of linguistic diversity, cultural sensitivity, and ethical considerations. Here are some key challenges and controversies:

• Bias in Language Technology: Language technology, including machine translation and natural language processing, may exhibit biases inherent in training data, algorithms, and model design. Biases based on race, gender, ethnicity, and other social factors can perpetuate stereotypes, reinforce inequalities, and marginalize underrepresented groups in linguistic and cultural contexts.
• Privacy Concerns: Language technology often relies on vast amounts of linguistic data, raising concerns about privacy, data security, and user consent. Speech recognition systems, language processing algorithms, and translation services may collect and store sensitive information, posing user privacy and autonomy risks.
• Digital Language Divide: The digital language divide refers to disparities in access to language technology and digital resources among linguistic communities worldwide. Minority, indigenous, and less-resourced languages may receive limited support in machine translation, speech recognition, and digital content localization, exacerbating linguistic inequalities and digital exclusion.
• Cultural Appropriation and Misrepresentation: Language technology and digital media platforms may perpetuate cultural appropriation, misrepresentation, and commodification of linguistic and cultural heritage. Automated translation systems, content recommendation algorithms, and user-generated content platforms may inadvertently propagate stereotypes, inaccuracies, and cultural insensitivities in linguistic content and representations.
• Threats to Linguistic Diversity: Globalization, urbanization, and language standardization efforts pose threats to linguistic diversity, endangering minority languages and indigenous languages around the world. Socio-economic factors, educational policies, and technological trends exacerbate language shift, language loss, and endangerment by prioritizing dominant languages and monocultural norms.
• Disinformation and Hate Speech: Language technology platforms and social media networks are vulnerable to the spread of disinformation, hate speech, and harmful content in multiple languages. Automated content moderation, natural language processing tools, and community guidelines are critical in addressing online abuse, combating misinformation, and promoting constructive dialogue in diverse linguistic communities.
• Linguistic Colonialism and Hegemony: Language technology development and digital content distribution may perpetuate linguistic colonialism and hegemony, privileging dominant languages and cultural norms over marginalized languages and worldviews. Digital divide, linguistic imperialism, and unequal access to language resources reinforce power imbalances and inhibit equitable participation in the global digital economy and knowledge society.

Language is humanity’s most powerful tool, transcending borders, cultures, and generations. It is the cornerstone of communication, enabling the exchange of ideas, emotions, and knowledge. Through language, we construct identities, share stories, and connect profoundly. Language shapes our perceptions, influences our interactions, and reflects the diversity of human experience. As we navigate the complexities of language, we celebrate its richness, preserve its heritage, and champion its role in fostering understanding and empathy. In a world where words hold the power to inspire, heal, and unite, language remains our most remarkable testament to the resilience and ingenuity of the human spirit.

*Please provide your correct email id. Login details for this Free course will be emailed to you

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Valuation, Hadoop, Excel, Web Development & many more.

Forgot Password?

This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Explore 1000+ varieties of Mock tests View more

Submit Next Question

Early-Bird Offer: ENROLL NOW

Essay on Relationship Between Language And Society

Students are often asked to write an essay on Relationship Between Language And Society in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Relationship Between Language And Society

Introduction.

Language and society are like two sides of a coin. Both influence each other in many ways. Language is how we communicate, and society is a group of people who share common practices or beliefs.

The Role of Language

Language is a tool for communication. It helps people express their thoughts, feelings, and ideas. It’s like a bridge connecting different minds. Through language, we can share our culture, traditions, and knowledge with others.

Language and Social Identity

Language helps in shaping our social identity. The way we talk can tell a lot about where we come from or which group we belong to. It helps us recognize and respect the diversity in our society.

Language and Social Change

Language changes as society changes. New words are created, and old ones disappear. This change reflects the evolution of society. For example, with the rise of technology, we now have words like “selfie” or “hashtag”.

250 Words Essay on Relationship Between Language And Society

Language and society are closely linked. Language is a tool we use to express our thoughts, ideas, and emotions. Society, on the other hand, is a group of people who share common customs, laws, and organizations. The two are connected in many ways.

The Role of Language in Society

Language plays a key role in society. It helps us share our thoughts and feelings with others. Imagine a world without language. How would we tell others what we think or feel? It would be very difficult. Language makes it easy for us to share ideas and communicate with each other.

The Influence of Society on Language

Society also influences language. People in different societies speak different languages. For example, people in China speak Chinese, while people in America speak English. The language we speak is often influenced by the society we live in.

Language and Culture

Language also reflects a society’s culture. The words and phrases we use can tell a lot about our beliefs and values. For example, in some cultures, there are many words for different types of snow. This shows how important snow is in these cultures.

In conclusion, language and society are closely linked. Language helps us communicate and share ideas, while society influences the language we speak. The two are always influencing each other in a continuous cycle. So, to understand a society, it’s important to understand its language.

500 Words Essay on Relationship Between Language And Society

The bond between language and society, language reflects society.

Firstly, language mirrors the society we live in. The words we use, the way we speak, all these show our culture and traditions. For example, in some societies, there are different ways to address people based on their age or status. This shows respect for elders and people of high rank. Similarly, some languages have words for things that are important in their culture but might not exist in others. This shows how language can give us a peek into different societies.

Society Influences Language

Secondly, society influences our language. As society changes, so does language. New words are created to describe new things or ideas. For example, with the rise of technology, words like “selfie” and “hashtag” have become part of our everyday language. This shows that as society grows and changes, language adapts to keep up.

Language Shapes Society

Language unites and divides society.

Lastly, language can both unite and divide society. On one hand, it brings people together. When we speak the same language, we can understand each other and form a community. On the other hand, it can also separate us. If we don’t understand a language, it can be hard to fit in. This shows that language plays a big role in who we connect with and how we fit into society.

In conclusion, language and society are closely linked. Language reflects society, is influenced by society, shapes society, and can both unite and divide society. Just as a mirror reflects our image, language reflects the society we live in. And just as a paintbrush shapes a painting, language shapes our world. So next time you speak or write, remember, your words are a powerful tool that can show, change, and connect our world.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3.4 Language, Society, and Culture

Learning objectives.

• Discuss some of the social norms that guide conversational interaction.
• Identify some of the ways in which language varies based on cultural context.
• Explain the role that accommodation and code-switching play in communication.
• Discuss cultural bias in relation to specific cultural identities.

Society and culture influence the words that we speak, and the words that we speak influence society and culture. Such a cyclical relationship can be difficult to understand, but many of the examples throughout this chapter and examples from our own lives help illustrate this point. One of the best ways to learn about society, culture, and language is to seek out opportunities to go beyond our typical comfort zones. Studying abroad, for example, brings many challenges that can turn into valuable lessons. The following example of such a lesson comes from my friend who studied abroad in Vienna, Austria.

Although English used to employ formal ( thou , thee ) and informal pronouns ( you ), today you can be used when speaking to a professor, a parent, or a casual acquaintance. Other languages still have social norms and rules about who is to be referred to informally and formally. My friend, as was typical in the German language, referred to his professor with the formal pronoun Sie but used the informal pronoun Du with his fellow students since they were peers. When the professor invited some of the American exchange students to dinner, they didn’t know they were about to participate in a cultural ritual that would change the way they spoke to their professor from that night on. Their professor informed them that they were going to duzen , which meant they were going to now be able to refer to her with the informal pronoun—an honor and sign of closeness for the American students. As they went around the table, each student introduced himself or herself to the professor using the formal pronoun, locked arms with her and drank (similar to the champagne toast ritual at some wedding ceremonies), and reintroduced himself or herself using the informal pronoun. For the rest of the semester, the American students still respectfully referred to the professor with her title, which translated to “Mrs. Doctor,” but used informal pronouns, even in class, while the other students not included in the ceremony had to continue using the formal. Given that we do not use formal and informal pronouns in English anymore, there is no equivalent ritual to the German duzen , but as we will learn next, there are many rituals in English that may be just as foreign to someone else.

Language and Social Context

We arrive at meaning through conversational interaction, which follows many social norms and rules. As we’ve already learned, rules are explicitly stated conventions (“Look at me when I’m talking to you.”) and norms are implicit (saying you’ve got to leave before you actually do to politely initiate the end to a conversation). To help conversations function meaningfully, we have learned social norms and internalized them to such an extent that we do not often consciously enact them. Instead, we rely on routines and roles (as determined by social forces) to help us proceed with verbal interaction, which also helps determine how a conversation will unfold. Our various social roles influence meaning and how we speak. For example, a person may say, “As a longtime member of this community…” or “As a first-generation college student…” Such statements cue others into the personal and social context from which we are speaking, which helps them better interpret our meaning.

One social norm that structures our communication is turn taking. People need to feel like they are contributing something to an interaction, so turn taking is a central part of how conversations play out (Crystal, 2005). Although we sometimes talk at the same time as others or interrupt them, there are numerous verbal and nonverbal cues, almost like a dance, that are exchanged between speakers that let people know when their turn will begin or end. Conversations do not always neatly progress from beginning to end with shared understanding along the way. There is a back and forth that is often verbally managed through rephrasing (“Let me try that again,”) and clarification (“Does that make sense?”) (Crystal, 2005)

We also have certain units of speech that facilitate turn taking. Adjacency pairs are related communication structures that come one after the other (adjacent to each other) in an interaction (Crystal, 2005). For example, questions are followed by answers, greetings are followed by responses, compliments are followed by a thank you, and informative comments are followed by an acknowledgment. These are the skeletal components that make up our verbal interactions, and they are largely social in that they facilitate our interactions. When these sequences don’t work out, confusion, miscommunication, or frustration may result, as you can see in the following sequences:

Travis: “How are you?”

Wanda: “Did someone tell you I’m sick?”

Darrell: “I just wanted to let you know the meeting has been moved to three o’clock.”

Leigh: “I had cake for breakfast this morning.”

Some conversational elements are highly scripted or ritualized, especially the beginning and end of an exchange and topic changes (Crystal, 2005). Conversations often begin with a standard greeting and then proceed to “safe” exchanges about things in the immediate field of experience of the communicators (a comment on the weather or noting something going on in the scene). At this point, once the ice is broken, people can move on to other more content-specific exchanges. Once conversing, before we can initiate a topic change, it is a social norm that we let the current topic being discussed play itself out or continue until the person who introduced the topic seems satisfied. We then usually try to find a relevant tie-in or segue that acknowledges the previous topic, in turn acknowledging the speaker, before actually moving on. Changing the topic without following such social conventions might indicate to the other person that you were not listening or are simply rude.

Social norms influence how conversations start and end and how speakers take turns to keep the conversation going.

Felipe Cabrera – conversation – CC BY 2.0.

Ending a conversation is similarly complex. I’m sure we’ve all been in a situation where we are “trapped” in a conversation that we need or want to get out of. Just walking away or ending a conversation without engaging in socially acceptable “leave-taking behaviors” would be considered a breach of social norms. Topic changes are often places where people can leave a conversation, but it is still routine for us to give a special reason for leaving, often in an apologetic tone (whether we mean it or not). Generally though, conversations come to an end through the cooperation of both people, as they offer and recognize typical signals that a topic area has been satisfactorily covered or that one or both people need to leave. It is customary in the United States for people to say they have to leave before they actually do and for that statement to be dismissed or ignored by the other person until additional leave-taking behaviors are enacted. When such cooperation is lacking, an awkward silence or abrupt ending can result, and as we’ve already learned, US Americans are not big fans of silence. Silence is not viewed the same way in other cultures, which leads us to our discussion of cultural context.

Language and Cultural Context

Culture isn’t solely determined by a person’s native language or nationality. It’s true that languages vary by country and region and that the language we speak influences our realities, but even people who speak the same language experience cultural differences because of their various intersecting cultural identities and personal experiences. We have a tendency to view our language as a whole more favorably than other languages. Although people may make persuasive arguments regarding which languages are more pleasing to the ear or difficult or easy to learn than others, no one language enables speakers to communicate more effectively than another (McCornack, 2007).

From birth we are socialized into our various cultural identities. As with the social context, this acculturation process is a combination of explicit and implicit lessons. A child in Colombia, which is considered a more collectivist country in which people value group membership and cohesion over individualism, may not be explicitly told, “You are a member of a collectivistic culture, so you should care more about the family and community than yourself.” This cultural value would be transmitted through daily actions and through language use. Just as babies acquire knowledge of language practices at an astonishing rate in their first two years of life, so do they acquire cultural knowledge and values that are embedded in those language practices. At nine months old, it is possible to distinguish babies based on their language. Even at this early stage of development, when most babies are babbling and just learning to recognize but not wholly reproduce verbal interaction patterns, a Colombian baby would sound different from a Brazilian baby, even though neither would actually be using words from their native languages of Spanish and Portuguese (Crystal, 2005).

The actual language we speak plays an important role in shaping our reality. Comparing languages, we can see differences in how we are able to talk about the world. In English, we have the words grandfather and grandmother , but no single word that distinguishes between a maternal grandfather and a paternal grandfather. But in Swedish, there’s a specific word for each grandparent: morfar is mother’s father, farfar is father’s father, farmor is father’s mother, and mormor is mother’s mother (Crystal, 2005). In this example, we can see that the words available to us, based on the language we speak, influence how we talk about the world due to differences in and limitations of vocabulary. The notion that language shapes our view of reality and our cultural patterns is best represented by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Although some scholars argue that our reality is determined by our language, we will take a more qualified view and presume that language plays a central role in influencing our realities but doesn’t determine them (Martin & Nakayama, 2010).

Culturally influenced differences in language and meaning can lead to some interesting encounters, ranging from awkward to informative to disastrous. In terms of awkwardness, you have likely heard stories of companies that failed to exhibit communication competence in their naming and/or advertising of products in another language. For example, in Taiwan, Pepsi used the slogan “Come Alive with Pepsi” only to later find out that when translated it meant, “Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead” (Kwintessential Limited, 2012). Similarly, American Motors introduced a new car called the Matador to the Puerto Rico market only to learn that Matador means “killer,” which wasn’t very comforting to potential buyers (Kwintessential, 2012). At a more informative level, the words we use to give positive reinforcement are culturally relative. In the United States and England, parents commonly positively and negatively reinforce their child’s behavior by saying, “Good girl” or “Good boy.” There isn’t an equivalent for such a phrase in other European languages, so the usage in only these two countries has been traced back to the puritan influence on beliefs about good and bad behavior (Wierzbicka, 2004). In terms of disastrous consequences, one of the most publicized and deadliest cross-cultural business mistakes occurred in India in 1984. Union Carbide, an American company, controlled a plant used to make pesticides. The company underestimated the amount of cross-cultural training that would be needed to allow the local workers, many of whom were not familiar with the technology or language/jargon used in the instructions for plant operations to do their jobs. This lack of competent communication led to a gas leak that immediately killed more than two thousand people and over time led to more than five hundred thousand injuries (Varma, 2012).

Accents and Dialects

The documentary American Tongues , although dated at this point, is still a fascinating look at the rich tapestry of accents and dialects that makes up American English. Dialects are versions of languages that have distinct words, grammar, and pronunciation. Accents are distinct styles of pronunciation (Lustig & Koester, 2006). There can be multiple accents within one dialect. For example, people in the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern United States speak a dialect of American English that is characterized by remnants of the linguistic styles of Europeans who settled the area a couple hundred years earlier. Even though they speak this similar dialect, a person in Kentucky could still have an accent that is distinguishable from a person in western North Carolina.

American English has several dialects that vary based on region, class, and ancestry.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 4.0.

Dialects and accents can vary by region, class, or ancestry, and they influence the impressions that we make of others. When I moved to Colorado from North Carolina, I was met with a very strange look when I used the word buggy to refer to a shopping cart. Research shows that people tend to think more positively about others who speak with a dialect similar to their own and think more negatively about people who speak differently. Of course, many people think they speak normally and perceive others to have an accent or dialect. Although dialects include the use of different words and phrases, it’s the tone of voice that often creates the strongest impression. For example, a person who speaks with a Southern accent may perceive a New Englander’s accent to be grating, harsh, or rude because the pitch is more nasal and the rate faster. Conversely, a New Englander may perceive a Southerner’s accent to be syrupy and slow, leading to an impression that the person speaking is uneducated.

Customs and Norms

Social norms are culturally relative. The words used in politeness rituals in one culture can mean something completely different in another. For example, thank you in American English acknowledges receiving something (a gift, a favor, a compliment), in British English it can mean “yes” similar to American English’s yes, please , and in French merci can mean “no” as in “no, thank you” (Crystal, 2005). Additionally, what is considered a powerful language style varies from culture to culture. Confrontational language, such as swearing, can be seen as powerful in Western cultures, even though it violates some language taboos, but would be seen as immature and weak in Japan (Wetzel, 1988).

Gender also affects how we use language, but not to the extent that most people think. Although there is a widespread belief that men are more likely to communicate in a clear and straightforward way and women are more likely to communicate in an emotional and indirect way, a meta-analysis of research findings from more than two hundred studies found only small differences in the personal disclosures of men and women (Dindia & Allen, 1992). Men and women’s levels of disclosure are even more similar when engaging in cross-gender communication, meaning men and woman are more similar when speaking to each other than when men speak to men or women speak to women. This could be due to the internalized pressure to speak about the other gender in socially sanctioned ways, in essence reinforcing the stereotypes when speaking to the same gender but challenging them in cross-gender encounters. Researchers also dispelled the belief that men interrupt more than women do, finding that men and women interrupt each other with similar frequency in cross-gender encounters (Dindia, 1987). These findings, which state that men and women communicate more similarly during cross-gender encounters and then communicate in more stereotypical ways in same-gender encounters, can be explained with communication accommodation theory.

Communication Accommodation and Code-Switching

Communication accommodation theory is a theory that explores why and how people modify their communication to fit situational, social, cultural, and relational contexts (Giles, Taylor, & Bourhis, 1973). Within communication accommodation, conversational partners may use convergence , meaning a person makes his or her communication more like another person’s. People who are accommodating in their communication style are seen as more competent, which illustrates the benefits of communicative flexibility. In order to be flexible, of course, people have to be aware of and monitor their own and others’ communication patterns. Conversely, conversational partners may use divergence , meaning a person uses communication to emphasize the differences between his or her conversational partner and his or herself.

Convergence and divergence can take place within the same conversation and may be used by one or both conversational partners. Convergence functions to make others feel at ease, to increase understanding, and to enhance social bonds. Divergence may be used to intentionally make another person feel unwelcome or perhaps to highlight a personal, group, or cultural identity. For example, African American women use certain verbal communication patterns when communicating with other African American women as a way to highlight their racial identity and create group solidarity. In situations where multiple races interact, the women usually don’t use those same patterns, instead accommodating the language patterns of the larger group. While communication accommodation might involve anything from adjusting how fast or slow you talk to how long you speak during each turn, code-switching refers to changes in accent, dialect, or language (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). There are many reasons that people might code-switch. Regarding accents, some people hire vocal coaches or speech-language pathologists to help them alter their accent. If a Southern person thinks their accent is leading others to form unfavorable impressions, they can consciously change their accent with much practice and effort. Once their ability to speak without their Southern accent is honed, they may be able to switch very quickly between their native accent when speaking with friends and family and their modified accent when speaking in professional settings.

People who work or live in multilingual settings may engage in code-switching several times a day.

Eltpics – Welsh – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Additionally, people who work or live in multilingual settings may code-switch many times throughout the day, or even within a single conversation. Increasing outsourcing and globalization have produced heightened pressures for code-switching. Call center workers in India have faced strong negative reactions from British and American customers who insist on “speaking to someone who speaks English.” Although many Indians learn English in schools as a result of British colonization, their accents prove to be off-putting to people who want to get their cable package changed or book an airline ticket. Now some Indian call center workers are going through intense training to be able to code-switch and accommodate the speaking style of their customers. What is being called the “Anglo-Americanization of India” entails “accent-neutralization,” lessons on American culture (using things like Sex and the City DVDs), and the use of Anglo-American-sounding names like Sean and Peggy (Pal, 2004). As our interactions continue to occur in more multinational contexts, the expectations for code-switching and accommodation are sure to increase. It is important for us to consider the intersection of culture and power and think critically about the ways in which expectations for code-switching may be based on cultural biases.

Language and Cultural Bias

In the previous example about code-switching and communication accommodation in Indian call centers, the move toward accent neutralization is a response to the “racist abuse” these workers receive from customers (Nadeem, 2012). Anger in Western countries about job losses and economic uncertainty has increased the amount of racially targeted verbal attacks on international call center employees. It was recently reported that more call center workers are now quitting their jobs as a result of the verbal abuse and that 25 percent of workers who have recently quit say such abuse was a major source of stress (Gentleman, 2005). Such verbal attacks are not new; they represent a common but negative way that cultural bias explicitly manifests in our language use.

Cultural bias is a skewed way of viewing or talking about a group that is typically negative. Bias has a way of creeping into our daily language use, often under our awareness. Culturally biased language can make reference to one or more cultural identities, including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and ability. There are other sociocultural identities that can be the subject of biased language, but we will focus our discussion on these five. Much biased language is based on stereotypes and myths that influence the words we use. Bias is both intentional and unintentional, but as we’ve already discussed, we have to be accountable for what we say even if we didn’t “intend” a particular meaning—remember, meaning is generated; it doesn’t exist inside our thoughts or words. We will discuss specific ways in which cultural bias manifests in our language and ways to become more aware of bias. Becoming aware of and addressing cultural bias is not the same thing as engaging in “political correctness.” Political correctness takes awareness to the extreme but doesn’t do much to address cultural bias aside from make people feel like they are walking on eggshells. That kind of pressure can lead people to avoid discussions about cultural identities or avoid people with different cultural identities. Our goal is not to eliminate all cultural bias from verbal communication or to never offend anyone, intentionally or otherwise. Instead, we will continue to use guidelines for ethical communication that we have already discussed and strive to increase our competence. The following discussion also focuses on bias rather than preferred terminology or outright discriminatory language, which will be addressed more in Chapter 8 “Culture and Communication” , which discusses culture and communication.

People sometimes use euphemisms for race that illustrate bias because the terms are usually implicitly compared to the dominant group (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010). For example, referring to a person as “urban” or a neighborhood as “inner city” can be an accurate descriptor, but when such words are used as a substitute for racial identity, they illustrate cultural biases that equate certain races with cities and poverty. Using adjectives like articulate or well-dressed in statements like “My black coworker is articulate” reinforces negative stereotypes even though these words are typically viewed as positive. Terms like nonwhite set up whiteness as the norm, which implies that white people are the norm against which all other races should be compared. Biased language also reduces the diversity within certain racial groups—for example, referring to anyone who looks like they are of Asian descent as Chinese or everyone who “looks” Latino/a as Mexicans. Some people with racial identities other than white, including people who are multiracial, use the label person/people of color to indicate solidarity among groups, but it is likely that they still prefer a more specific label when referring to an individual or referencing a specific racial group.

Language has a tendency to exaggerate perceived and stereotypical differences between men and women. The use of the term opposite sex presumes that men and women are opposites, like positive and negative poles of a magnet, which is obviously not true or men and women wouldn’t be able to have successful interactions or relationships. A term like other gender doesn’t presume opposites and acknowledges that male and female identities and communication are more influenced by gender, which is the social and cultural meanings and norms associated with males and females, than sex, which is the physiology and genetic makeup of a male and female. One key to avoiding gendered bias in language is to avoid the generic use of he when referring to something relevant to males and females. Instead, you can informally use a gender-neutral pronoun like they or their or you can use his or her (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010). When giving a series of examples, you can alternate usage of masculine and feminine pronouns, switching with each example. We have lasting gendered associations with certain occupations that have tended to be male or female dominated, which erase the presence of both genders. Other words reflect the general masculine bias present in English. The following word pairs show the gender-biased term followed by an unbiased term: waitress/server, chairman / chair or chairperson, mankind/people, cameraman / camera operator, mailman / postal worker, sportsmanship / fair play. Common language practices also tend to infantilize women but not men, when, for example, women are referred to as chicks , girls , or babes . Since there is no linguistic equivalent that indicates the marital status of men before their name, using Ms. instead of Miss or Mrs. helps reduce bias.

Language that includes age bias can be directed toward older or younger people. Descriptions of younger people often presume recklessness or inexperience, while those of older people presume frailty or disconnection. The term elderly generally refers to people over sixty-five, but it has connotations of weakness, which isn’t accurate because there are plenty of people over sixty-five who are stronger and more athletic than people in their twenties and thirties. Even though it’s generic, older people doesn’t really have negative implications. More specific words that describe groups of older people include grandmothers/grandfathers (even though they can be fairly young too), retirees , or people over sixty-five (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010). Referring to people over the age of eighteen as boys or girls isn’t typically viewed as appropriate.

Age bias can appear in language directed toward younger or older people.

Davide Mauro – Old and young – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Sexual Orientation

Discussions of sexual and affectional orientation range from everyday conversations to contentious political and personal debates. The negative stereotypes that have been associated with homosexuality, including deviance, mental illness, and criminal behavior, continue to influence our language use (American Psychological Association, 2012). Terminology related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and asexual (LGBTQA+) people can be confusing, so let’s spend some time raise our awareness about preferred labels. First, sexual orientation is the term preferred to sexual preference . Preference suggests a voluntary choice, as in someone has a preference for cheddar or American cheese, which doesn’t reflect the experience of most LGBTQA+ people or research findings that show sexuality is more complex. You may also see affectional orientation included with sexual orientation because it acknowledges that LGBTQA+ relationships, like heterosexual relationships, are about intimacy and closeness (affection) that is not just sexually based. Most people also prefer the labels gay , lesbian , or bisexual to homosexual , which is clinical and doesn’t so much refer to an identity as a sex act. Language regarding romantic relationships contains bias when heterosexuality is assumed. Keep in mind that individuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same gender in most states in the United States. For example, if you ask a gay man who has been in a committed partnership for ten years if he is “married or single,” how should he answer that question? Comments comparing LGBTQA+ people to “normal” people, although possibly intended to be positive, reinforces the stereotype that LGBTQA+ people are abnormal. Don’t presume you can identify a person’s sexual orientation by looking at them or talking to them. Don’t assume that LGBTQA+ people will “come out” to you. Given that many LGBTQA+ people have faced and continue to face regular discrimination, they may be cautious about disclosing their identities. However, using gender neutral terminology like partner and avoiding other biased language mentioned previously may create a climate in which a LGBTQA+ person feels comfortable disclosing his or her sexual orientation identity. Conversely, the casual use of phrases like that’s gay to mean “that’s stupid” may create an environment in which LGBTQA+ people do not feel comfortable. Even though people don’t often use the phrase to actually refer to sexual orientation, campaigns like “ThinkB4YouSpeak.com” try to educate people about the power that language has and how we should all be more conscious of the words we use.

People with disabilities make up a diverse group that has increasingly come to be viewed as a cultural/social identity group. People without disabilities are often referred to as able-bodied . As with sexual orientation, comparing people with disabilities to “normal” people implies that there is an agreed-on definition of what “normal” is and that people with disabilities are “abnormal.” Disability is also preferred to the word handicap . Just because someone is disabled doesn’t mean he or she is also handicapped. The environment around them rather than their disability often handicaps people with disabilities (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010). Ignoring the environment as the source of a handicap and placing it on the person fits into a pattern of reducing people with disabilities to their disability—for example, calling someone a paraplegic instead of a person with paraplegia. In many cases, as with sexual orientation, race, age, and gender, verbally marking a person as disabled isn’t relevant and doesn’t need spotlighting. Language used in conjunction with disabilities also tends to portray people as victims of their disability and paint pictures of their lives as gloomy, dreadful, or painful. Such descriptors are often generalizations or completely inaccurate.

“Getting Critical”

Hate Speech

Hate is a term that has many different meanings and can be used to communicate teasing, mild annoyance, or anger. The term hate , as it relates to hate speech, has a much more complex and serious meaning. Hate refers to extreme negative beliefs and feelings toward a group or member of a group because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or ability (Waltman & Haas, 2011). We can get a better understanding of the intensity of hate by distinguishing it from anger, which is an emotion that we experience much more regularly. First, anger is directed toward an individual, while hate is directed toward a social or cultural group. Second, anger doesn’t prevent a person from having sympathy for the target of his or her anger, but hate erases sympathy for the target. Third, anger is usually the result of personal insult or injury, but hate can exist and grow even with no direct interaction with the target. Fourth, anger isn’t an emotion that people typically find pleasure in, while hatred can create feelings of self-righteousness and superiority that lead to pleasure. Last, anger is an emotion that usually dissipates as time passes, eventually going away, while hate can endure for much longer (Waltman & Haas, 2011). Hate speech is a verbal manifestation of this intense emotional and mental state.

Hate speech is usually used by people who have a polarized view of their own group (the in-group) and another group (the out-group). Hate speech is then used to intimidate people in the out-group and to motivate and influence members of the in-group. Hate speech often promotes hate-based violence and is also used to solidify in-group identification and attract new members (Waltman & Haas, 2011). Perpetrators of hate speech often engage in totalizing, which means they define a person or a group based on one quality or characteristic, ignoring all others. A Lebanese American may be the target of hate speech because the perpetrators reduce him to a Muslim—whether he actually is Muslim or not would be irrelevant. Grouping all Middle Eastern- or Arab-looking people together is a dehumanizing activity that is typical to hate speech.

Incidents of hate speech and hate crimes have increased over the past fifteen years. Hate crimes, in particular, have gotten more attention due to the passage of more laws against hate crimes and the increased amount of tracking by various levels of law enforcement. The Internet has also made it easier for hate groups to organize and spread their hateful messages. As these changes have taken place over the past fifteen years, there has been much discussion about hate speech and its legal and constitutional implications. While hate crimes resulting in damage to a person or property are regularly prosecuted, it is sometimes argued that hate speech that doesn’t result in such damage is protected under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees free speech. Just recently, in 2011, the Supreme Court found in the Snyder v. Phelps case that speech and actions of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who regularly protest the funerals of American soldiers with signs reading things like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Fag Sin = 9/11,” were protected and not criminal. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision, “We cannot react to [the Snyder family’s] pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate” (Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, 2012).

• Do you think the First Amendment of the Constitution, guaranteeing free speech to US citizens, should protect hate speech? Why or why not?
• Visit the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Map” (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2012) (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map) to see what hate groups they have identified in your state. Are you surprised by the number/nature of the groups listed in your state? Briefly describe a group that you didn’t know about and identify the target of its hate and the reasons it gives for its hate speech.

Key Takeaways

• Getting integrated: Social context influences the ways in which we use language, and we have been socialized to follow implicit social rules like those that guide the flow of conversations, including how we start and end our interactions and how we change topics. The way we use language changes as we shift among academic, professional, personal, and civic contexts.
• The language that we speak influences our cultural identities and our social realities. We internalize norms and rules that help us function in our own culture but that can lead to misunderstanding when used in other cultural contexts.
• We can adapt to different cultural contexts by purposely changing our communication. Communication accommodation theory explains that people may adapt their communication to be more similar to or different from others based on various contexts.
• We should become aware of how our verbal communication reveals biases toward various cultural identities based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and ability.
• Recall a conversation that became awkward when you or the other person deviated from the social norms that manage conversation flow. Was the awkwardness at the beginning, end, or during a topic change? After reviewing some of the common norms discussed in the chapter, what do you think was the source of the awkwardness?
• Describe an accent or a dialect that you find pleasing/interesting. Describe an accent/dialect that you do not find pleasing/interesting. Why do you think you evaluate one positively and the other negatively?
• Review how cultural bias relates to the five cultural identities discussed earlier. Identify something you learned about bias related to one of these identities that you didn’t know before. What can you do now to be more aware of how verbal communication can reinforce cultural biases?

American Psychological Association, “Supplemental Material: Writing Clearly and Concisely,” accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.apastyle.org/manual/supplement/redirects/pubman-ch03.13.aspx .

Crystal, D., How Language Works: How Babies Babble, Words Change Meaning, and Languages Live or Die (Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2005), 155.

Dindia, K., “The Effect of Sex of Subject and Sex of Partner on Interruptions,” Human Communication Research 13, no. 3 (1987): 345–71.

Dindia, K. and Mike Allen, “Sex Differences in Self-Disclosure: A Meta Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 112, no. 1 (1992): 106–24.

Exploring Constitutional Conflicts , “Regulation of Fighting Words and Hate Speech,” accessed June 7, 2012, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm .

Gentleman, A., “Indiana Call Staff Quit over Abuse on the Line,” The Guardian , May 28, 2005, accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/29/india.ameliagentleman .

Giles, H., Donald M. Taylor, and Richard Bourhis, “Toward a Theory of Interpersonal Accommodation through Language: Some Canadian Data,” Language and Society 2, no. 2 (1973): 177–92.

Kwintessential Limited , “Results of Poor Cross Cultural Awareness,” accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/cultural-services/articles/Results of Poor Cross Cultural Awareness.html .

Lustig, M. W. and Jolene Koester, Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Cultures , 2nd ed. (Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006), 199–200.

Martin, J. N. and Thomas K. Nakayama, Intercultural Communication in Contexts , 5th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 222–24.

McCornack, S., Reflect and Relate: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication (Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2007), 224–25.

Nadeem, S., “Accent Neutralisation and a Crisis of Identity in India’s Call Centres,” The Guardian , February 9, 2011, accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/09/india-call-centres-accent-neutralisation .

Pal, A., “Indian by Day, American by Night,” The Progressive , August 2004, accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.progressive.org/mag_pal0804 .

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2010), 71–76.

Southern Poverty Law Center , “Hate Map,” accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map.

Varma, S., “Arbitrary? 92% of All Injuries Termed Minor,” The Times of India , June 20, 2010, accessed June 7, 2012, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-06-20/india/28309628_1_injuries-gases-cases .

Waltman, M. and John Haas, The Communication of Hate (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 2011), 33.

Wetzel, P. J., “Are ‘Powerless’ Communication Strategies the Japanese Norm?” Language in Society 17, no. 4 (1988): 555–64.

Wierzbicka, A., “The English Expressions Good Boy and Good Girl and Cultural Models of Child Rearing,” Culture and Psychology 10, no. 3 (2004): 251–78.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Relationship Between Language and Culture Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

What is culture, relationship between language and culture, role of language in cultural diversity, reference list.

How does culture influence language? An essay isn’t enough to answer this question in detail. The purpose of the paper is to clearly highlight the issue of intercultural communication with reference to language and identity.

Language and culture are intertwined. One cannot define or identify cultural orientations without citing variations in how we speak and write. Thus, to explore the relationship between language and culture, this essay will start by defining the terms separately.

Culture describes variations in values, beliefs, as well as differences in the way people behave (DeVito 2007). Culture encompasses everything that a social group develops or produces.

Element of culture are not genetically transmitted and as such, they have to be passed down from one generation the next through communication. This explains why it is easy to adopt a certain language depending on the shared beliefs, attitudes and values.

The existence of different cultures can be explained using the cultural relativism approach which stipulates that although cultures tend to vary, none is superior to the other (DeVito 2007).

Learning of cultural values can be done through enculturation whereby individuals learn the culture of their birth. Alternatively, one can be acculturated into a culture that is divergent from their basic culture (DeVito 2007).

Language is the verbal channel of communication by articulating words that an individual is conversant with. This is aimed at relaying information. In other words, it is the expression of one’s culture verbally (Jandt 2009).

Language is the first element that helps an individual to distinguish the cultural orientations of individuals. Through language, we are able to differentiate between for example, a Chinese national and a Briton. The main functions of language are generally for information purposes and for the establishment of relationships.

Different cultures perceive the use of language differently. Whereas an American regards it as a useful communication tool, a Chinese will use their language to relay their feelings and to establish relationships.

It is through such variances of language that different cultures have placed on the usage of their language show the link between the two study variables (Jandt 2009).

Intercultural communication refers to communication between people from different cultural backgrounds. Due to the differences in cultures, there is a high probability that a message will be misunderstood and distorted.

Difference in languages leads to challenges in the interpretation of for example, politeness, acts of speech and interaction management. Normally, differences in languages lead to impediments in understanding. This is due to the difference in perception in as far as values are concerned.

Language shapes our lines of thought and as such, it is the core element that shapes how people perceive the world. The way people communicate is largely due to their cultures of origin. Language increases the rate of ethnocentrism in individuals thus furthering their self-centeredness in culture.

As a result, they are less responsive to the different means of communication that are not similar to their own values and beliefs (McGregor eta al 2007).

Language further heightens the aspect of accelerating cultural differences as it openly showcases the variations in communication. In turn, this view tends to impede negatively on intercultural efforts, thereby having a negative impact on the communication between individuals of different cultural orientations.

There is need for individuals to evaluate the usage of language in order to effectively interpret the shared meanings that are meant to be communicated. It is important therefore that individuals from a multi cultural context look at each other beyond their differences in order to enable effective communication.

DeVito, J A. (2006) Human communication the basic course, 10 th edition. Boston, Mass: Pearson / Allyn and Bacon.

Jandt, F E. (2007) An introduction to intercultural communication: identities in global community . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mohan, T, McGregor, M T, Saunders, H & Archee, S. (2008) Communicating as a professional . Sydney, Australia: Cengage Learning.

• Cultural Aspects in Different Societies
• Can Culture Be a Hurdle to Conflict Resolution?
• Hmong Americans and Traditional Practices of Healing
• Foolishness: Psychological Perspective
• Gender in Politeness Development in Classroom Discourse
• Appropriation of Black Culture Life by Whites
• Cultural Differences: Individualism vs. Collectivism
• Americanization of Russia and its Impact on Young Generation
• Smoking Culture in Society
• The Main Distinctions of Popular Culture and Its Growth
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, July 2). Relationship Between Language and Culture Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/relationship-between-language-and-culture/

"Relationship Between Language and Culture Essay." IvyPanda , 2 July 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/relationship-between-language-and-culture/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Relationship Between Language and Culture Essay'. 2 July.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Relationship Between Language and Culture Essay." July 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/relationship-between-language-and-culture/.

1. IvyPanda . "Relationship Between Language and Culture Essay." July 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/relationship-between-language-and-culture/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Relationship Between Language and Culture Essay." July 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/relationship-between-language-and-culture/.

Society in Language, Language in Society

Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan

• © 2016
• Wendy L. Bowcher 0 ,
• Jennifer Yameng Liang 1

Sun Yat-sen University, China

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

University of Science and Technology Beijing, China

16k Accesses

37 Citations

3 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Similar content being viewed by others.

Twenty-Seven Views (Plus One) of Language Socialization

Hebrew in the Daily Life of Israelis

• Systemic Functional Linguistics
• social semiotics
• semantic networks
• context of situation
• language and society
• cohesive harmony
• reflection literacy
• generic structure potential
• Ruqaiya Hasan
• ontogenesis
• social distance
• communication

Table of contents (17 chapters)

Front matter, hasan’s linguistics, the ontogenesis of rationality: nigel revisited.

• M. A. K. Halliday

‘Construe My Meaning’: Performance, Poetry and Semiotic Distance

• David G. Butt

Jakobson’s Place in Hasan’s Social Semiotic Stylistics: ‘Pervasive Parallelism as Symbolic Articulation of Theme

• Donna R. Miller

Semantic Networks

Can semantic networks capture intra-and inter-registerial variation palliative care discourse interrogates hasan’s message semantics.

• Alison Rotha Moore

Hasan’s Semantic Networks Revisited: a Cantonese Systemic Functional Approach

Context of situation, language and society, context and text: the contributions of ruqaiya hasan.

• Annabelle Lukin

Multiscalar Modelling of Context: Some Questions Raised by the Category of Mode

• Tom Bartlett

On Describing Contexts of Situation

• Margaret Berry

Interfacing Field with Tenor: Hasan’s Notion of Personal Distance

Studying language in society and society through language: context and multimodal communication.

• Rebekah Wegener

Structure and Texture: Two Kinds of Unity

Gsp and multimodal texts.

• Wendy L. Bowcher, Jennifer Yameng Liang

Construing Instructional Contexts

• Carmel Cloran

‘Threads of Continuity’ and Interaction: Coherence, Texture and Cohesive Harmony

• Kristin M. Khoo

Literacy and Education

Editors and affiliations.

Wendy L. Bowcher

Jennifer Yameng Liang

About the editors

Bibliographic information.

Book Title : Society in Language, Language in Society

Book Subtitle : Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan

Editors : Wendy L. Bowcher, Jennifer Yameng Liang

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137402868

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan London

eBook Packages : Social Sciences , Social Sciences (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Hardcover ISBN : 978-1-137-40285-1 Published: 21 October 2015

eBook ISBN : 978-1-137-40286-8 Published: 26 January 2016

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XVIII, 452

Topics : Sociolinguistics , Discourse Analysis , Semantics

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Language and power.

• Sik Hung Ng Sik Hung Ng Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China
•  and  Fei Deng Fei Deng School of Foreign Studies, South China Agricultural University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.436
• Published online: 22 August 2017

Five dynamic language–power relationships in communication have emerged from critical language studies, sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, and the social psychology of language and communication. Two of them stem from preexisting powers behind language that it reveals and reflects, thereby transferring the extralinguistic powers to the communication context. Such powers exist at both the micro and macro levels. At the micro level, the power behind language is a speaker’s possession of a weapon, money, high social status, or other attractive personal qualities—by revealing them in convincing language, the speaker influences the hearer. At the macro level, the power behind language is the collective power (ethnolinguistic vitality) of the communities that speak the language. The dominance of English as a global language and international lingua franca, for example, has less to do with its linguistic quality and more to do with the ethnolinguistic vitality of English-speakers worldwide that it reflects. The other three language–power relationships refer to the powers of language that are based on a language’s communicative versatility and its broad range of cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions in meaning-making, social interaction, and language policies. Such language powers include, first, the power of language to maintain existing dominance in legal, sexist, racist, and ageist discourses that favor particular groups of language users over others. Another language power is its immense impact on national unity and discord. The third language power is its ability to create influence through single words (e.g., metaphors), oratories, conversations and narratives in political campaigns, emergence of leaders, terrorist narratives, and so forth.

• power behind language
• power of language
• intergroup communication
• World Englishes
• oratorical power
• conversational power
• leader emergence
• al-Qaeda narrative
• social identity approach

Introduction

Language is for communication and power.

Language is a natural human system of conventionalized symbols that have understood meanings. Through it humans express and communicate their private thoughts and feelings as well as enact various social functions. The social functions include co-constructing social reality between and among individuals, performing and coordinating social actions such as conversing, arguing, cheating, and telling people what they should or should not do. Language is also a public marker of ethnolinguistic, national, or religious identity, so strong that people are willing to go to war for its defense, just as they would defend other markers of social identity, such as their national flag. These cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions make language a fundamental medium of human communication. Language is also a versatile communication medium, often and widely used in tandem with music, pictures, and actions to amplify its power. Silence, too, adds to the force of speech when it is used strategically to speak louder than words. The wide range of language functions and its versatility combine to make language powerful. Even so, this is only one part of what is in fact a dynamic relationship between language and power. The other part is that there is preexisting power behind language which it reveals and reflects, thereby transferring extralinguistic power to the communication context. It is thus important to delineate the language–power relationships and their implications for human communication.

This chapter provides a systematic account of the dynamic interrelationships between language and power, not comprehensively for lack of space, but sufficiently focused so as to align with the intergroup communication theme of the present volume. The term “intergroup communication” will be used herein to refer to an intergroup perspective on communication, which stresses intergroup processes underlying communication and is not restricted to any particular form of intergroup communication such as interethnic or intergender communication, important though they are. It echoes the pioneering attempts to develop an intergroup perspective on the social psychology of language and communication behavior made by pioneers drawn from communication, social psychology, and cognate fields (see Harwood et al., 2005 ). This intergroup perspective has fostered the development of intergroup communication as a discipline distinct from and complementing the discipline of interpersonal communication. One of its insights is that apparently interpersonal communication is in fact dynamically intergroup (Dragojevic & Giles, 2014 ). For this and other reasons, an intergroup perspective on language and communication behavior has proved surprisingly useful in revealing intergroup processes in health communication (Jones & Watson, 2012 ), media communication (Harwood & Roy, 2005 ), and communication in a variety of organizational contexts (Giles, 2012 ).

The major theoretical foundation that has underpinned the intergroup perspective is social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982 ), which continues to service the field as a metatheory (Abrams & Hogg, 2004 ) alongside relatively more specialized theories such as ethnolinguistic identity theory (Harwood et al., 1994 ), communication accommodation theory (Palomares et al., 2016 ), and self-categorization theory applied to intergroup communication (Reid et al., 2005 ). Against this backdrop, this chapter will be less concerned with any particular social category of intergroup communication or variant of social identity theory, and more with developing a conceptual framework of looking at the language–power relationships and their implications for understanding intergroup communication. Readers interested in an intra- or interpersonal perspective may refer to the volume edited by Holtgraves ( 2014a ).

Conceptual Approaches to Power

Bertrand Russell, logician cum philosopher and social activist, published a relatively little-known book on power when World War II was looming large in Europe (Russell, 2004 ). In it he asserted the fundamental importance of the concept of power in the social sciences and likened its importance to the concept of energy in the physical sciences. But unlike physical energy, which can be defined in a formula (e.g., E=MC 2 ), social power has defied any such definition. This state of affairs is not unexpected because the very nature of (social) power is elusive. Foucault ( 1979 , p. 92) has put it this way: “Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” This view is not beyond criticism but it does highlight the elusiveness of power. Power is also a value-laden concept meaning different things to different people. To functional theorists and power-wielders, power is “power to,” a responsibility to unite people and do good for all. To conflict theorists and those who are dominated, power is “power over,” which corrupts and is a source of social conflict rather than integration (Lenski, 1966 ; Sassenberg et al., 2014 ). These entrenched views surface in management–labor negotiations and political debates between government and opposition. Management and government would try to frame the negotiation in terms of “power to,” whereas labor and opposition would try to frame the same in “power over” in a clash of power discourses. The two discourses also interchange when the same speakers reverse their power relations: While in opposition, politicians adhere to “power over” rhetorics, once in government, they talk “power to.” And vice versa.

The elusive and value-laden nature of power has led to a plurality of theoretical and conceptual approaches. Five approaches that are particularly pertinent to the language–power relationships will be discussed, and briefly so because of space limitation. One approach views power in terms of structural dominance in society by groups who own and/or control the economy, the government, and other social institutions. Another approach views power as the production of intended effects by overcoming resistance that arises from objective conflict of interests or from psychological reactance to being coerced, manipulated, or unfairly treated. A complementary approach, represented by Kurt Lewin’s field theory, takes the view that power is not the actual production of effects but the potential for doing this. It looks behind power to find out the sources or bases of this potential, which may stem from the power-wielders’ access to the means of punishment, reward, and information, as well as from their perceived expertise and legitimacy (Raven, 2008 ). A fourth approach views power in terms of the balance of control/dependence in the ongoing social exchange between two actors that takes place either in the absence or presence of third parties. It provides a structural account of power-balancing mechanisms in social networking (Emerson, 1962 ), and forms the basis for combining with symbolic interaction theory, which brings in subjective factors such as shared social cognition and affects for the analysis of power in interpersonal and intergroup negotiation (Stolte, 1987 ). The fifth, social identity approach digs behind the social exchange account, which has started from control/dependence as a given but has left it unexplained, to propose a three-process model of power emergence (Turner, 2005 ). According to this model, it is psychological group formation and associated group-based social identity that produce influence; influence then cumulates to form the basis of power, which in turn leads to the control of resources.

Common to the five approaches above is the recognition that power is dynamic in its usage and can transform from one form of power to another. Lukes ( 2005 ) has attempted to articulate three different forms or faces of power called “dimensions.” The first, behavioral dimension of power refers to decision-making power that is manifest in the open contest for dominance in situations of objective conflict of interests. Non-decision-making power, the second dimension, is power behind the scene. It involves the mobilization of organizational bias (e.g., agenda fixing) to keep conflict of interests from surfacing to become public issues and to deprive oppositions of a communication platform to raise their voices, thereby limiting the scope of decision-making to only “safe” issues that would not challenge the interests of the power-wielder. The third dimension is ideological and works by socializing people’s needs and values so that they want the wants and do the things wanted by the power-wielders, willingly as their own. Conflict of interests, opposition, and resistance would be absent from this form of power, not because they have been maneuvered out of the contest as in the case of non-decision-making power, but because the people who are subject to power are no longer aware of any conflict of interest in the power relationship, which may otherwise ferment opposition and resistance. Power in this form can be exercised without the application of coercion or reward, and without arousing perceived manipulation or conflict of interests.

Language–Power Relationships

As indicated in the chapter title, discussion will focus on the language–power relationships, and not on language alone or power alone, in intergroup communication. It draws from all the five approaches to power and can be grouped for discussion under the power behind language and the power of language. In the former, language is viewed as having no power of its own and yet can produce influence and control by revealing the power behind the speaker. Language also reflects the collective/historical power of the language community that uses it. In the case of modern English, its preeminent status as a global language and international lingua franca has shaped the communication between native and nonnative English speakers because of the power of the English-speaking world that it reflects, rather than because of its linguistic superiority. In both cases, language provides a widely used conventional means to transfer extralinguistic power to the communication context. Research on the power of language takes the view that language has power of its own. This power allows a language to maintain the power behind it, unite or divide a nation, and create influence.

In Figure 1 we have grouped the five language–power relationships into five boxes. Note that the boundary between any two boxes is not meant to be rigid but permeable. For example, by revealing the power behind a message (box 1), a message can create influence (box 5). As another example, language does not passively reflect the power of the language community that uses it (box 2), but also, through its spread to other language communities, generates power to maintain its preeminence among languages (box 3). This expansive process of language power can be seen in the rise of English to global language status. A similar expansive process also applies to a particular language style that first reflects the power of the language subcommunity who uses the style, and then, through its common acceptance and usage by other subcommunities in the country, maintains the power of the subcommunity concerned. A prime example of this type of expansive process is linguistic sexism, which reflects preexisting male dominance in society and then, through its common usage by both sexes, contributes to the maintenance of male dominance. Other examples are linguistic racism and the language style of the legal profession, each of which, like linguistic sexism and the preeminence of the English language worldwide, has considerable impact on individuals and society at large.

Space precludes a full discussion of all five language–power relationships. Instead, some of them will warrant only a brief mention, whereas others will be presented in greater detail. The complexity of the language–power relations and their cross-disciplinary ramifications will be evident in the multiple sets of interrelated literatures that we cite from. These include the social psychology of language and communication, critical language studies (Fairclough, 1989 ), sociolinguistics (Kachru, 1992 ), and conversation analysis (Sacks et al., 1974 ).

Figure 1. Power behind language and power of language.

Power Behind Language

Language reveals power.

When negotiating with police, a gang may issue the threatening message, “Meet our demands, or we will shoot the hostages!” The threatening message may succeed in coercing the police to submit; its power, however, is more apparent than real because it is based on the guns gangsters posses. The message merely reveals the power of a weapon in their possession. Apart from revealing power, the gangsters may also cheat. As long as the message comes across as credible and convincing enough to arouse overwhelming fear, it would allow them to get away with their demands without actually possessing any weapon. In this case, language is used to produce an intended effect despite resistance by deceptively revealing a nonexisting power base and planting it in the mind of the message recipient. The literature on linguistic deception illustrates the widespread deceptive use of language-reveals-power to produce intended effects despite resistance (Robinson, 1996 ).

Language Reflects Power

Ethnolinguistic vitality.

The language that a person uses reflects the language community’s power. A useful way to think about a language community’s linguistic power is through the ethnolinguistic vitality model (Bourhis et al., 1981 ; Harwood et al., 1994 ). Language communities in a country vary in absolute size overall and, just as important, a relative numeric concentration in particular regions. Francophone Canadians, though fewer than Anglophone Canadians overall, are concentrated in Quebec to give them the power of numbers there. Similarly, ethnic minorities in mainland China have considerable power of numbers in those autonomous regions where they are concentrated, such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang. Collectively, these factors form the demographic base of the language community’s ethnolinguistic vitality, an index of the community’s relative linguistic dominance. Another base of ethnolinguistic vitality is institutional representations of the language community in government, legislatures, education, religion, the media, and so forth, which afford its members institutional leadership, influence, and control. Such institutional representation is often reinforced by a language policy that installs the language as the nation’s sole official language. The third base of ethnolinguistic vitality comprises sociohistorical and cultural status of the language community inside the nation and internationally. In short, the dominant language of a nation is one that comes from and reflects the high ethnolinguistic vitality of its language community.

An important finding of ethnolinguistic vitality research is that it is perceived vitality, and not so much its objective demographic-institutional-cultural strengths, that influences language behavior in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Interestingly, the visibility and salience of languages shown on public and commercial signs, referred to as the “linguistic landscape,” serve important informational and symbolic functions as a marker of their relative vitality, which in turn affects the use of in-group language in institutional settings (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006 ; Landry & Bourhis, 1997 ).

World Englishes and Lingua Franca English

Another field of research on the power behind and reflected in language is “World Englishes.” At the height of the British Empire English spread on the back of the Industrial Revolution and through large-scale migrations of Britons to the “New World,” which has since become the core of an “inner circle” of traditional native English-speaking nations now led by the United States (Kachru, 1992 ). The emergent wealth and power of these nations has maintained English despite the decline of the British Empire after World War II. In the post-War era, English has become internationalized with the support of an “outer circle” nations and, later, through its spread to “expanding circle” nations. Outer circle nations are made up mostly of former British colonies such as India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. In compliance with colonial language policies that institutionalized English as the new colonial national language, a sizeable proportion of the colonial populations has learned and continued using English over generations, thereby vastly increasing the number of English speakers over and above those in the inner circle nations. The expanding circle encompasses nations where English has played no historical government roles, but which are keen to appropriate English as the preeminent foreign language for local purposes such as national development, internationalization of higher education, and participation in globalization (e.g., China, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, Egypt, Israel, and continental Europe).

English is becoming a global language with official or special status in at least 75 countries (British Council, n.d. ). It is also the language choice in international organizations and companies, as well as academia, and is commonly used in trade, international mass media, and entertainment, and over the Internet as the main source of information. English native speakers can now follow the worldwide English language track to find jobs overseas without having to learn the local language and may instead enjoy a competitive language advantage where the job requires English proficiency. This situation is a far cry from the colonial era when similar advantages had to come under political patronage. Alongside English native speakers who work overseas benefitting from the preeminence of English over other languages, a new phenomenon of outsourcing international call centers away from the United Kingdom and the United States has emerged (Friginal, 2007 ). Callers can find the information or help they need from people stationed in remote places such as India or the Philippines where English has penetrated.

As English spreads worldwide, it has also become the major international lingua franca, serving some 800 million multilinguals in Asia alone, and numerous others elsewhere (Bolton, 2008 ). The practical importance of this phenomenon and its impact on English vocabulary, grammar, and accent have led to the emergence of a new field of research called “English as a lingua franca” (Brosch, 2015 ). The twin developments of World Englishes and lingua franca English raise interesting and important research questions. A vast area of research lies in waiting.

Several lines of research suggest themselves from an intergroup communication perspective. How communicatively effective are English native speakers who are international civil servants in organizations such as the UN and WTO, where they habitually speak as if they were addressing their fellow natives without accommodating to the international audience? Another line of research is lingua franca English communication between two English nonnative speakers. Their common use of English signals a joint willingness of linguistic accommodation, motivated more by communication efficiency of getting messages across and less by concerns of their respective ethnolinguistic identities. An intergroup communication perspective, however, would sensitize researchers to social identity processes and nonaccommodation behaviors underneath lingua franca communication. For example, two nationals from two different countries, X and Y, communicating with each other in English are accommodating on the language level; at the same time they may, according to communication accommodation theory, use their respective X English and Y English for asserting their ethnolinguistic distinctiveness whilst maintaining a surface appearance of accommodation. There are other possibilities. According to a survey of attitudes toward English accents, attachment to “standard” native speaker models remains strong among nonnative English speakers in many countries (Jenkins, 2009 ). This suggests that our hypothetical X and Y may, in addition to asserting their respective Englishes, try to outperform one another in speaking with overcorrect standard English accents, not so much because they want to assert their respective ethnolinguistic identities, but because they want to project a common in-group identity for positive social comparison—“We are all English-speakers but I am a better one than you!”

Many countries in the expanding circle nations are keen to appropriate English for local purposes, encouraging their students and especially their educational elites to learn English as a foreign language. A prime example is the Learn-English Movement in China. It has affected generations of students and teachers over the past 30 years and consumed a vast amount of resources. The results are mixed. Even more disturbing, discontents and backlashes have emerged from anti-English Chinese motivated to protect the vitality and cultural values of the Chinese language (Sun et al., 2016 ). The power behind and reflected in modern English has widespread and far-reaching consequences in need of more systematic research.

Power of Language

Language maintains existing dominance.

Language maintains and reproduces existing dominance in three different ways represented respectively by the ascent of English, linguistic sexism, and legal language style. For reasons already noted, English has become a global language, an international lingua franca, and an indispensable medium for nonnative English speaking countries to participate in the globalized world. Phillipson ( 2009 ) referred to this phenomenon as “linguistic imperialism.” It is ironic that as the spread of English has increased the extent of multilingualism of non-English-speaking nations, English native speakers in the inner circle of nations have largely remained English-only. This puts pressure on the rest of the world to accommodate them in English, the widespread use of which maintains its preeminence among languages.

A language evolves and changes to adapt to socially accepted word meanings, grammatical rules, accents, and other manners of speaking. What is acceptable or unacceptable reflects common usage and hence the numerical influence of users, but also the elites’ particular language preferences and communication styles. Research on linguistic sexism has shown, for example, a man-made language such as English (there are many others) is imbued with sexist words and grammatical rules that reflect historical male dominance in society. Its uncritical usage routinely by both sexes in daily life has in turn naturalized male dominance and associated sexist inequalities (Spender, 1998 ). Similar other examples are racist (Reisigl & Wodak, 2005 ) and ageist (Ryan et al., 1995 ) language styles.

Professional languages are made by and for particular professions such as the legal profession (Danet, 1980 ; Mertz et al., 2016 ; O’Barr, 1982 ). The legal language is used not only among members of the profession, but also with the general public, who may know each and every word in a legal document but are still unable to decipher its meaning. Through its language, the legal profession maintains its professional dominance with the complicity of the general public, who submits to the use of the language and accedes to the profession’s authority in interpreting its meanings in matters relating to their legal rights and obligations. Communication between lawyers and their “clients” is not only problematic, but the public’s continual dependence on the legal language contributes to the maintenance of the dominance of the profession.

Language Unites and Divides a Nation

A nation of many peoples who, despite their diverse cultural and ethnic background, all speak in the same tongue and write in the same script would reap the benefit of the unifying power of a common language. The power of the language to unite peoples would be stronger if it has become part of their common national identity and contributed to its vitality and psychological distinctiveness. Such power has often been seized upon by national leaders and intellectuals to unify their countries and serve other nationalistic purposes (Patten, 2006 ). In China, for example, Emperor Qin Shi Huang standardized the Chinese script ( hanzi ) as an important part of the reforms to unify the country after he had defeated the other states and brought the Warring States Period ( 475–221 bc ) to an end. A similar reform of language standardization was set in motion soon after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty ( ad 1644–1911 ), by simplifying some of the hanzi and promoting Putonghua as the national standard oral language. In the postcolonial part of the world, language is often used to service nationalism by restoring the official status of their indigenous language as the national language whilst retaining the colonial language or, in more radical cases of decolonization, relegating the latter to nonofficial status. Yet language is a two-edged sword: It can also divide a nation. The tension can be seen in competing claims to official-language status made by minority language communities, protest over maintenance of minority languages, language rights at schools and in courts of law, bilingual education, and outright language wars (Calvet, 1998 ; DeVotta, 2004 ).

Language Creates Influence

In this section we discuss the power of language to create influence through single words and more complex linguistic structures ranging from oratories and conversations to narratives/stories.

Power of Single Words

Learning a language empowers humans to master an elaborate system of conventions and the associations between words and their sounds on the one hand, and on the other hand, categories of objects and relations to which they refer. After mastering the referential meanings of words, a person can mentally access the objects and relations simply by hearing or reading the words. Apart from their referential meanings, words also have connotative meanings with their own social-cognitive consequences. Together, these social-cognitive functions underpin the power of single words that has been extensively studied in metaphors, which is a huge research area that crosses disciplinary boundaries and probes into the inner workings of the brain (Benedek et al., 2014 ; Landau et al., 2014 ; Marshal et al., 2007 ). The power of single words extends beyond metaphors. It can be seen in misleading words in leading questions (Loftus, 1975 ), concessive connectives that reverse expectations from real-world knowledge (Xiang & Kuperberg, 2014 ), verbs that attribute implicit causality to either verb subject or object (Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2013 ), “uncertainty terms” that hedge potentially face-threatening messages (Holtgraves, 2014b ), and abstract words that signal power (Wakslak et al., 2014 ).

The literature on the power of single words has rarely been applied to intergroup communication, with the exception of research arising from the linguistic category model (e.g., Semin & Fiedler, 1991 ). The model distinguishes among descriptive action verbs (e.g., “hits”), interpretative action verbs (e.g., “hurts”) and state verbs (e.g., “hates”), which increase in abstraction in that order. Sentences made up of abstract verbs convey more information about the protagonist, imply greater temporal and cross-situational stability, and are more difficult to disconfirm. The use of abstract language to represent a particular behavior will attribute the behavior to the protagonist rather than the situation and the resulting image of the protagonist will persist despite disconfirming information, whereas the use of concrete language will attribute the same behavior more to the situation and the resulting image of the protagonist will be easier to change. According to the linguistic intergroup bias model (Maass, 1999 ), abstract language will be used to represent positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors, whereas concrete language will be used to represent negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. The combined effects of the differential use of abstract and concrete language would, first, lead to biased attribution (explanation) of behavior privileging the in-group over the out-group, and second, perpetuate the prejudiced intergroup stereotypes. More recent research has shown that linguistic intergroup bias varies with the power differential between groups—it is stronger in high and low power groups than in equal power groups (Rubini et al., 2007 ).

Oratorical Power

A charismatic speaker may, by the sheer force of oratory, buoy up people’s hopes, convert their hearts from hatred to forgiveness, or embolden them to take up arms for a cause. One may recall moving speeches (in English) such as Susan B. Anthony’s “On Women’s Right to Vote,” Winston Churchill’s “We Shall Fight on the Beaches,” Mahatma Gandhi’s “Quit India,” or Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream.” The speech may be delivered face-to-face to an audience, or broadcast over the media. The discussion below focuses on face-to-face oratories in political meetings.

Oratorical power may be measured in terms of money donated or pledged to the speaker’s cause, or, in a religious sermon, the number of converts made. Not much research has been reported on these topics. Another measurement approach is to count the frequency of online audience responses that a speech has generated, usually but not exclusively in the form of applause. Audience applause can be measured fairly objectively in terms of frequency, length, or loudness, and collected nonobtrusively from a public recording of the meeting. Audience applause affords researchers the opportunity to explore communicative and social psychological processes that underpin some aspects of the power of rhetorical formats. Note, however, that not all incidences of audience applause are valid measures of the power of rhetoric. A valid incidence should be one that is invited by the speaker and synchronized with the flow of the speech, occurring at the appropriate time and place as indicated by the rhetorical format. Thus, an uninvited incidence of applause would not count, nor is one that is invited but has occurred “out of place” (too soon or too late). Furthermore, not all valid incidences are theoretically informative to the same degree. An isolated applause from just a handful of the audience, though valid and in the right place, has relatively little theoretical import for understanding the power of rhetoric compared to one that is made by many acting in unison as a group. When the latter occurs, it would be a clear indication of the power of rhetorically formulated speech. Such positive audience response constitutes the most direct and immediate means by which an audience can display its collective support for the speaker, something which they would not otherwise show to a speech of less power. To influence and orchestrate hundreds and thousands of people in the audience to precisely coordinate their response to applaud (and cheer) together as a group at the right time and place is no mean feat. Such a feat also influences the wider society through broadcast on television and other news and social media. The combined effect could be enormous there and then, and its downstream influence far-reaching, crossing country boarders and inspiring generations to come.

To accomplish the feat, an orator has to excite the audience to applaud, build up the excitement to a crescendo, and simultaneously cue the audience to synchronize their outburst of stored-up applause with the ongoing speech. Rhetorical formats that aid the orator to accomplish the dual functions include contrast, list, puzzle solution, headline-punchline, position-taking, and pursuit (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986 ). To illustrate, we cite the contrast and list formats.

A contrast, or antithesis, is made up of binary schemata such as “too much” and “too little.” Heritage and Greatbatch ( 1986 , p. 123) reported the following example:

Governments will argue that resources are not available to help disabled people. The fact is that too much is spent on the munitions of war, and too little is spent on the munitions of peace [italics added]. As the audience is familiar with the binary schema of “too much” and “too little” they can habitually match the second half of the contrast against the first half. This decoding process reinforces message comprehension and helps them to correctly anticipate and applaud at the completion point of the contrast. In the example quoted above, the speaker micropaused for 0.2 seconds after the second word “spent,” at which point the audience began to applaud in anticipation of the completion point of the contrast, and applauded more excitedly upon hearing “. . . on the munitions of peace.” The applause continued and lasted for 9.2 long seconds.

A list is usually made up of a series of three parallel words, phrases or clauses. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” is a fine example, as is Obama’s “It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day , in this election , at this defining moment , change has come to America!” (italics added) The three parts in the list echo one another, step up the argument and its corresponding excitement in the audience as they move from one part to the next. The third part projects a completion point to cue the audience to get themselves ready to display their support via applause, cheers, and so forth. In a real conversation this juncture is called a “transition-relevance place,” at which point a conversational partner (hearer) may take up a turn to speak. A skilful orator will micropause at that juncture to create a conversational space for the audience to take up their turn in applauding and cheering as a group.

As illustrated by the two examples above, speaker and audience collaborate to transform an otherwise monological speech into a quasiconversation, turning a passive audience into an active supportive “conversational” partner who, by their synchronized responses, reduces the psychological separation from the speaker and emboldens the latter’s self-confidence. Through such enjoyable and emotional participation collectively, an audience made up of formerly unconnected individuals with no strong common group identity may henceforth begin to feel “we are all one.” According to social identity theory and related theories (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ), the emergent group identity, politicized in the process, will in turn provide a social psychological base for collective social action. This process of identity making in the audience is further strengthened by the speaker’s frequent use of “we” as a first person, plural personal pronoun.

Conversational Power

A conversation is a speech exchange system in which the length and order of speaking turns have not been preassigned but require coordination on an utterance-by-utterance basis between two or more individuals. It differs from other speech exchange systems in which speaking turns have been preassigned and/or monitored by a third party, for example, job interviews and debate contests. Turn-taking, because of its centrality to conversations and the important theoretical issues that it raises for social coordination and implicit conversational conventions, has been the subject of extensive research and theorizing (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990 ; Grice, 1975 ; Sacks et al., 1974 ). Success at turn-taking is a key part of the conversational process leading to influence. A person who cannot do this is in no position to influence others in and through conversations, which are probably the most common and ubiquitous form of human social interaction. Below we discuss studies of conversational power based on conversational turns and applied to leader emergence in group and intergroup settings. These studies, as they unfold, link conversation analysis with social identity theory and expectation states theory (Berger et al., 1974 ).

A conversational turn in hand allows the speaker to influence others in two important ways. First, through current-speaker-selects-next the speaker can influence who will speak next and, indirectly, increases the probability that he or she will regain the turn after the next. A common method for selecting the next speaker is through tag questions. The current speaker (A) may direct a tag question such as “Ya know?” or “Don’t you agree?” to a particular hearer (B), which carries the illocutionary force of selecting the addressee to be the next speaker and, simultaneously, restraining others from self-selecting. The A 1 B 1 sequence of exchange has been found to have a high probability of extending into A 1 B 1 A 2 in the next round of exchange, followed by its continuation in the form of A 1 B 1 A 2 B 2 . For example, in a six-member group, the A 1 B 1 →A 1 B 1 A 2 sequence of exchange has more than 50% chance of extending to the A 1 B 1 A 2 B 2 sequence, which is well above chance level, considering that there are four other hearers who could intrude at either the A 2 or B 2 slot of turn (Stasser & Taylor, 1991 ). Thus speakership not only offers the current speaker the power to select the next speaker twice, but also to indirectly regain a turn.

Second, a turn in hand provides the speaker with an opportunity to exercise topic control. He or she can exercise non-decision-making power by changing an unfavorable or embarrassing topic to a safer one, thereby silencing or preventing it from reaching the “floor.” Conversely, he or she can exercise decision-making power by continuing or raising a topic that is favorable to self. Or the speaker can move on to talk about an innocuous topic to ease tension in the group.

Bales ( 1950 ) has studied leader emergence in groups made up of unacquainted individuals in situations where they have to bid or compete for speaking turns. Results show that individuals who talk the most have a much better chance of becoming leaders. Depending on the social orientations of their talk, they would be recognized as a task or relational leader. Subsequent research on leader emergence has shown that an even better behavioral predictor than volume of talk is the number of speaking turns. An obvious reason for this is that the volume of talk depends on the number of turns—it usually accumulates across turns, rather than being the result of a single extraordinary long turn of talk. Another reason is that more turns afford the speaker more opportunities to realize the powers of turns that have been explicated above. Group members who become leaders are the ones who can penetrate the complex, on-line conversational system to obtain a disproportionately large number of speaking turns by perfect timing at “transition-relevance places” to self-select as the next speaker or, paradoxical as it may seem, constructive interruptions (Ng et al., 1995 ).

More recent research has extended the experimental study of group leadership to intergroup contexts, where members belonging to two groups who hold opposing stances on a social or political issue interact within and also between groups. The results showed, first, that speaking turns remain important in leader emergence, but the intergroup context now generates social identity and self-categorization processes that selectively privilege particular forms of speech. What potential leaders say, and not only how many speaking turns they have gained, becomes crucial in conveying to group members that they are prototypical members of their group. Prototypical communication is enacted by adopting an accent, choosing code words, and speaking in a tone that characterize the in-group; above all, it is enacted through the content of utterances to represent or exemplify the in-group position. Such prototypical utterances that are directed successfully at the out-group correlate strongly with leader emergence (Reid & Ng, 2000 ). These out-group-directed prototypical utterances project an in-group identity that is psychologically distinctive from the out-group for in-group members to feel proud of and to rally together when debating with the out-group.

Building on these experimental results Reid and Ng ( 2003 ) developed a social identity theory of leadership to account for the emergence and maintenance of intergroup leadership, grounding it in case studies of the intergroup communication strategies that brought Ariel Sharon and John Howard to power in Israel and Australia, respectively. In a later development, the social identity account was fused with expectation states theory to explain how group processes collectively shape the behavior of in-group members to augment the prototypical communication behavior of the emergent leader (Reid & Ng, 2006 ). Specifically, when conversational influence gained through prototypical utterances culminates to form an incipient power hierarchy, group members develop expectations of who is and will be leading the group. Acting on these tacit expectations they collectively coordinate the behavior of each other to conform with the expectations by granting incipient leaders more speaking turns and supporting them with positive audience responses. In this way, group members collectively amplify the influence of incipient leaders and jointly propel them to leadership roles (see also Correll & Ridgeway, 2006 ). In short, the emergence of intergroup leaders is a joint process of what they do individually and what group members do collectively, enabled by speaking turns and mediated by social identity and expectation states processes. In a similar vein, Hogg ( 2014 ) has developed a social identity account of leadership in intergroup settings.

Narrative Power

Narratives and stories are closely related and are sometimes used interchangeably. However, it is useful to distinguish a narrative from a story and from other related terms such as discourse and frames. A story is a sequence of related events in the past recounted for rhetorical or ideological purposes, whereas a narrative is a coherent system of interrelated and sequentially organized stories formed by incorporating new stories and relating them to others so as to provide an ongoing basis for interpreting events, envisioning an ideal future, and motivating and justifying collective actions (Halverson et al., 2011 ). The temporal dimension and sense of movement in a narrative also distinguish it from discourse and frames. According to Miskimmon, O’Loughlin, and Roselle ( 2013 ), discourses are the raw material of communication that actors plot into a narrative, and frames are the acts of selecting and highlighting some events or issues to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and solution. Both discourse and frame lack the temporal and causal transformation of a narrative.

Pitching narratives at the suprastory level and stressing their temporal and transformational movements allows researchers to take a structurally more systemic and temporally more expansive view than traditional research on propaganda wars between nations, religions, or political systems (Halverson et al., 2011 ; Miskimmon et al., 2013 ). Schmid ( 2014 ) has provided an analysis of al-Qaeda’s “compelling narrative that authorizes its strategy, justifies its violent tactics, propagates its ideology and wins new recruits.” According to this analysis, the chief message of the narrative is “the West is at war with Islam,” a strategic communication that is fundamentally intergroup in both structure and content. The intergroup structure of al-Qaeda narrative includes the rhetorical constructions that there are a group grievance inflicted on Muslims by a Zionist–Christian alliance, a vision of the good society (under the Caliphate and sharia), and a path from grievance to the realization of the vision led by al-Qaeda in a violent jihad to eradicate Western influence in the Muslim world. The al-Qaeda narrative draws support not only from traditional Arab and Muslim cultural narratives interpreted to justify its unorthodox means (such as attacks against women and children), but also from pre-existing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism propagated by some Arab governments, Soviet Cold War propaganda, anti-Western sermons by Muslim clerics, and the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. It is deeply embedded in culture and history, and has reached out to numerous Muslims who have emigrated to the West.

The intergroup content of al-Qaeda narrative was shown in a computer-aided content analysis of 18 representative transcripts of propaganda speeches released between 2006–2011 by al-Qaeda leaders, totaling over 66,000 words (Cohen et al., 2016 ). As part of the study, an “Ideology Extraction using Linguistic Extremization” (IELEX) categorization scheme was developed for mapping the content of the corpus, which revealed 19 IELEX rhetorical categories referring to either the out-group/enemy or the in-group/enemy victims. The out-group/enemy was represented by four categories such as “The enemy is extremely negative (bloodthirsty, vengeful, brainwashed, etc.)”; whereas the in-group/enemy victims were represented by more categories such as “we are entirely innocent/good/virtuous.” The content of polarized intergroup stereotypes, demonizing “them” and glorifying “us,” echoes other similar findings (Smith et al., 2008 ), as well as the general finding of intergroup stereotyping in social psychology (Yzerbyt, 2016 ).

The success of the al-Qaeda narrative has alarmed various international agencies, individual governments, think tanks, and religious groups to spend huge sums of money on developing counternarratives that are, according to Schmid ( 2014 ), largely feeble. The so-called “global war on terror” has failed in its effort to construct effective counternarratives although al-Qaeda’s finance, personnel, and infrastructure have been much weakened. Ironically, it has developed into a narrative of its own, not so much for countering external extremism, but for promoting and justifying internal nationalistic extremist policies and influencing national elections. This reactive coradicalization phenomenon is spreading (Mink, 2015 ; Pratt, 2015 ; Reicher & Haslam, 2016 ).

Discussion and Future Directions

This chapter provides a systematic framework for understanding five language–power relationships, namely, language reveals power, reflects power, maintains existing dominance, unites and divides a nation, and creates influence. The first two relationships are derived from the power behind language and the last three from the power of language. Collectively they provide a relatively comprehensible framework for understanding the relationships between language and power, and not simply for understanding language alone or power alone separated from one another. The language–power relationships are dynamically interrelated, one influencing the other, and each can draw from an array of the cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions of language. The framework is applicable to both interpersonal and intergroup contexts of communication, although for present purposes the latter has been highlighted. Among the substantive issues discussed in this chapter, English as a global language, oratorical and narrative power, and intergroup leadership stand out as particularly important for political and theoretical reasons.

In closing, we note some of the gaps that need to be filled and directions for further research. When discussing the powers of language to maintain and reflect existing dominance, we have omitted the countervailing power of language to resist or subvert existing dominance and, importantly, to create social change for the collective good. Furthermore, in this age of globalization and its discontents, English as a global language will increasingly be resented for its excessive unaccommodating power despite tangible lingua franca English benefits, and challenged by the expanding ethnolinguistic vitality of peoples who speak Arabic, Chinese, or Spanish. Internet communication is no longer predominantly in English, but is rapidly diversifying to become the modern Tower of Babel. And yet we have barely scratched the surface of these issues. Other glaring gaps include the omission of media discourse and recent developments in Corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (Loring, 2016 ), as well as the lack of reference to languages other than English that may cast one or more of the language–power relationships in a different light.

One of the main themes of this chapter—that the diverse language–power relationships are dynamically interrelated—clearly points to the need for greater theoretical fertilization across cognate disciplines. Our discussion of the three powers of language (boxes 3–5 in Figure 1 ) clearly points in this direction, most notably in the case of the powers of language to create influence through single words, oratories, conversations, and narratives, but much more needs to be done. The social identity approach will continue to serve as a meta theory of intergroup communication. To the extent that intergroup communication takes place in an existing power relation and that the changes that it seeks are not simply a more positive or psychologically distinctive social identity but greater group power and a more powerful social identity, the social identity approach has to incorporate power in its application to intergroup communication.

Further Reading

• Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language , 2d ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness . New York: John Wiley.
• Holtgraves, T. M. (2010). Social psychology and language: Words, utterances, and conversations. In S. Fiske , D. Gilbert , & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 1386–1422). New York: John Wiley.
• Mumby, D. K. (Ed.). (1993). Narrative and social control: Critical perspectives (Vol. 21). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Ng, S. H. , & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994088.n202 .
• Abrams, D. , & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 8 , 98–106.
• Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups . Oxford: Addison-Wesley.
• Benedek, M. , Beaty, R. , Jauk, E. , Koschutnig, K. , Fink, A. , Silvia, P. J. , . . . & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production. NeuroImage , 90 , 99–106.
• Berger, J. , Conner, T. L. , & Fisek, M. H. (Eds.). (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program . Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
• Bolton, K. (2008). World Englishes today. In B. B. Kachru , Y. Kachru , & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 240–269). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Bourhis, R. Y. , Giles, H. , & Rosenthal, D. (1981). Notes on the construction of a “Subjective vitality questionnaire” for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , 2 , 145–155.
• British Council . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-faq-the-english-language.htm .
• Brosch, C. (2015). On the conceptual history of the term Lingua Franca . Apples . Journal of Applied Language Studies , 9 (1), 71–85.
• Calvet, J. (1998). Language wars and linguistic politics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cenoz, J. , & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism , 3 , 67–80.
• Cohen, S. J. , Kruglanski, A. , Gelfand, M. J. , Webber, D. , & Gunaratna, R. (2016). Al-Qaeda’s propaganda decoded: A psycholinguistic system for detecting variations in terrorism ideology . Terrorism and Political Violence , 1–30.
• Correll, S. J. , & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Expectation states theory . In L. DeLamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). Hoboken, NJ: Springer.
• Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review , 14 , 445–564.
• DeVotta, N. (2004). Blowback: Linguistic nationalism, institutional decay, and ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Dragojevic, M. , & Giles, H. (2014). Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. In C. R. Berger (Ed.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 29–51). Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power–Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review , 27 , 31–41.
• Fairclough, N. L. (1989). Language and power . London: Longman.
• Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality volume 1: An introduction . London: Allen Lane.
• Friginal, E. (2007). Outsourced call centers and English in the Philippines. World Englishes , 26 , 331–345.
• Giles, H. (Ed.) (2012). The handbook of intergroup communication . New York: Routledge.
• Goodwin, C. , & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual review of anthropology , 19 , 283–307.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
• Halverson, J. R. , Goodall H. L., Jr. , & Corman, S. R. (2011). Master narratives of Islamist extremism . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Hartshorne, J. K. , & Snedeker, J. (2013). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes , 28 , 1474–1508.
• Harwood, J. , Giles, H. , & Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). The genesis of vitality theory: Historical patterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language , 108 , 167–206.
• Harwood, J. , Giles, H. , & Palomares, N. A. (2005). Intergroup theory and communication processes. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–20). New York: Peter Lang.
• Harwood, J. , & Roy, A. (2005). Social identity theory and mass communication research. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 189–212). New York: Peter Lang.
• Heritage, J. , & Greatbatch, D. (1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology , 92 , 110–157.
• Hogg, M. A. (2014). From uncertainty to extremism: Social categorization and identity processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 , 338–342.
• Holtgraves, T. M. (Ed.). (2014a). The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Holtgraves, T. M. (2014b). Interpreting uncertainty terms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 107 , 219–228.
• Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes , 28 , 200–207.
• Jones, L. , & Watson, B. M. (2012). Developments in health communication in the 21st century. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 31 , 415–436.
• Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Landau, M. J. , Robinson, M. D. , & Meier, B. P. (Eds.). (2014). The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Landry, R. , & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality an empirical study. Journal of language and social psychology , 16 , 23–49.
• Lenski, G. (1966). Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology , 7 , 560–572.
• Loring, A. (2016). Ideologies and collocations of “Citizenship” in media discourse: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. In A. Loring & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Language, immigration and naturalization: Legal and linguistic issues (chapter 9). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
• Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view , 2d ed. New York: Palgrave.
• Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in experimental social psychology , 31 , 79–121.
• Marshal, N. , Faust, M. , Hendler, T. , & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and language , 100 , 115–126.
• Mertz, E. , Ford, W. K. , & Matoesian, G. (Eds.). (2016). Translating the social world for law: Linguistic tools for a new legal realism . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mink, C. (2015). It’s about the group, not god: Social causes and cures for terrorism. Journal for Deradicalization , 5 , 63–91.
• Miskimmon, A. , O’Loughlin, B. , & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic narratives: Communicating power and the New World Order . New York: Routledge.
• Ng, S. H. , Brooke, M. & Dunne, M. (1995). Interruptions and influence in discussion groups. Journal of Language & Social Psychology , 14 , 369–381.
• O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom . London: Academic Press.
• Palomares, N. A. , Giles, H. , Soliz, J. , & Gallois, C. (2016). Intergroup accommodation, social categories, and identities. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 123–151). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Patten, A. (2006). The humanist roots of linguistic nationalism. History of Political Thought , 27 , 221–262.
• Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued . New York: Routledge.
• Pratt, D. (2015). Reactive co-radicalization: Religious extremism as mutual discontent. Journal for the Academic Study of Religion , 28 , 3–23.
• Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy , 8 , 1–22.
• Reicher, S. D. , & Haslam, S. A. (2016). Fueling extremes. Scientific American Mind , 27 , 34–39.
• Reid, S. A. , Giles, H. , & Harwood, J. (2005). A self-categorization perspective on communication and intergroup relations. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 241–264). New York: Peter Lang.
• Reid, S. A. , & Ng, S. H. (2000). Conversation as a resource for influence: Evidence for prototypical arguments and social identification processes. European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 83–100.
• Reid, S. A. , & Ng, S. H. (2003). Identity, power, and strategic social categorisations: Theorising the language of leadership. In P. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 210–223). London: SAGE.
• Reid, S. A. , & Ng, S. H. (2006). The dynamics of intragroup differentiation in an intergroup social context. Human Communication Research , 32 , 504–525.
• Reisigl, M. , & Wodak, R. (2005). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism . London: Routledge.
• Robinson, W. P. (1996). Deceit, delusion, and detection . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Rubini, M. , Moscatelli, S. , Albarello, F. , & Palmonari, A. (2007). Group power as a determinant of interdependence and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology , 37 (6), 1203–1221.
• Russell, B. (2004). Power: A new social analysis . Originally published in 1938. London: Routledge.
• Ryan, E. B. , Hummert, M. L. , & Boich, L. H. (1995). Communication predicaments of aging patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 14 (1–2), 144–166.
• Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. A. , & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. L anguage , 50 , 696–735.
• Sassenberg, K. , Ellemers, N. , Scheepers, D. , & Scholl, A. (2014). “Power corrupts” revisited: The role of construal of power as opportunity or responsibility. In J. -W. van Prooijen & P. A. M. van Lange (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders (pp. 73–87). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmid, A. P. (2014). Al-Qaeda’s “single narrative” and attempts to develop counter-narratives: The state of knowledge . The Hague, The Netherlands: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 26. Available at https://www.icct.nl/download/file/A-Schmid-Al-Qaedas-Single-Narrative-January-2014.pdf .
• Semin, G. R. , & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–50). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley.
• Smith, A. G. , Suedfeld, P. , Conway, L. G. , IIl, & Winter, D. G. (2008). The language of violence: Distinguishing terrorist from non-terrorist groups by thematic content analysis. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict , 1 (2), 142–163.
• Spender, D. (1998). Man made language , 4th ed. London: Pandora.
• Stasser, G. , & Taylor, L. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 60 , 675–684.
• Stolte, J. (1987). The formation of justice norms. American Sociological Review , 52 (6), 774–784.
• Sun, J. J. M. , Hu, P. , & Ng, S. H. (2016). Impact of English on education reforms in China: With reference to the learn-English movement, the internationalisation of universities and the English language requirement in college entrance examinations . Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , 1–14 (Published online January 22, 2016).
• Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology , 33 , 1–39.
• Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three—process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology , 35 , 1–22.
• Van Zomeren, M. , Postmes, T. , & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin , 134 (4), 504–535.
• Wakslak, C. J. , Smith, P. K. , & Han, A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 107 (1), 41–55.
• Xiang, M. , & Kuperberg, A. (2014). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension . Language, Cognition and Neuroscience , 30 , 648–672.
• Yzerbyt, V. (2016). Intergroup stereotyping. Current Opinion in Psychology , 11 , 90–95.

Related Articles

• Language Attitudes
• Vitality Theory
• The Politics of Translation and Interpretation in International Communication

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 08 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Character limit 500 /500

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 08 March 2023

Changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistics

• Jiayu Wang 1 ,
• Guangyu Jin 1 , 2 &
• Wenhua Li 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  91 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

8351 Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

This paper traces the changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistics. These perceptions of language are reviewed in terms of language in its verbal forms, and language in vis-à-vis as a multimodal construct. In reviewing these changing perceptions, this paper examines different concepts or approaches in sociolinguistics. By reviewing these trends of thoughts and applications, this article intends to shed light on ontological issues such as what constitutes language, and where its place is in multimodal practices in sociolinguistics. Expanding the ontology of language from verbal resources toward various multimodal constructs has enabled sociolinguists to pursue meaning-making, indexicalities and social variations in its most authentic state. Language in a multimodal construct entails the boundaries and distinctions between various modes, while language as a multimodal construct sees language itself as multimodal; it focuses on the social constructs, social meaning and language as a force in social change rather than the combination or orchestration of various modes in communication. Language as a multimodal construct has become the dominant trend in contemporary sociolinguistic studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Register-based distribution of expressions of modality in COCA

Comparing the language style of heads of state in the US, UK, Germany and Switzerland during COVID-19

Analyzing modality-mediated ideology in translated Chinese political discourses: an ideological square model approach

Introduction.

This article will review a range of sociolinguistic concepts and their applications in multimodal studies, in relation to how language has been conceptualized in sociolinguistics. While there are reviews of specific areas of research in sociolinguistics, including prosody and sociolinguistic variation (Holliday, 2021 ), language and masculinities (Lawson, 2020 ), and Language change across the lifespan (Sankoff, 2018 ), there have been few reviews works set out to delineate the most fundamental ontological questions in sociolinguistic studies; that is, what is and what constitutes language? How do sociolinguists perceive language in relation to other semiotic resources that are part and parcel of social meaning-making and social interaction? Relevant discussions are scattered in passing mainly in the introductory sections of various sociolinguistic works, such as Blommaert ( 1999 ), García and Li ( 2014 ) and Makoni and Pennycook ( 2005 ). However, there have not been review articles systematically dealing with the changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistic studies.

These issues are worthwhile to pursue in the sense that though sociolinguistics studies language, yet no reviews were done regarding what on earth constitutes language, especially in relation to a wider range of semiotic resources. What even makes the review more imperative is that in an increasingly globalized and high-tech world, linguistic practices are complicated by the super-diversity of ethnic fluidity, communications technologies, and globalized cross-cultural art.

Centring on the ontological perception of language in sociolinguistics, this article consists of five sections. After the “Introduction” section, the next section will review traditional (socio)linguistic perceptions of language as written or spoken signs or symbols that people use to communicate or interact with each other. The next section will review representative sociolinguistic approaches that place language in multimodal settings which involve the relationship between language and other semiotic resources. They are categorized as the conceptualizations of “language in multimodal construct” and “language as multimodal construct”. These conceptualizations share the common feature that language is not researched merely in terms of written and spoken signs and symbols, but it is probed (1) in relation to its multimodal contexts and (re)contextualization (regarding language in multimodal construct), (2) in terms of its own materiality and spatiality, and linguistic representations of multimodality, for instance, social (inter)action and “smellscapes” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015a ) which are in turn conflated with linguistic features (regarding language as multimodal construct). The penultimate section and the last section will present a critical reflection and a conclusion of the review, respectively.

Language as written and spoken signs and symbols

What constitutes language(s)? Saussure ( 1916 ) distinguishes between langue and parole. The former refers to the abstract, systematic rules and conventions of the signifying system, while the latter represents language in daily use. Chomsky ( 1965 ) refers to them as competence (corresponding to langue) and performance (corresponding to parole). Chomsky ( 1965 ) assumes that performance is bound up with “grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of this language in actual performance” (Chomsky, 1965 , pp. 3–4). He advocates that the agenda of linguistics should be the study of competence of “an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its (the speech community’s) language perfectly” (in brackets original). His conception of the ideal language rules out the “imperfections” arising from the influences of social or pragmatic dimensions in real language use. This can be seen as the conception of language as innate human competence. By contrast, constructionists have argued that language cannot be separated from the societal and social domain; social reality is constructed through languages (Berger and Luckmann, 1966 ), and linguistics should take social dimensions into account, as shown by Systemic Functional Linguistics developed by Halliday. These approaches to language studies, nevertheless, do not pay much attention to the ontological issues of language or linguistics concerning what constitutes language, whether languages can be separated from each other, and whether there are different conceptions of language(s).

Sociolinguistics, taking as its departure an interdisciplinary attempt to be the sociology regarding linguistic issues or linguistics regarding sociological issues, faces the ambivalent positioning of whether it should be sociologically oriented (that is, more explanatory) or linguistically oriented (that is, more descriptive) (Cameron, 1990 ). Also, there are contentions regarding whether more attention should be paid to epistemically linguistic minutiae (as in conversation analysis or CA), or to the macro-social interpretation of ideology not necessarily dependent on the evident orientation of the participants (as in critical discourse analysis, or CDA), as debated in Blommaert ( 2005 ) and Schegloff ( 1992 , 1998a / 1998b , 1999 ). As such, more sociolinguists than linguists in other disciplines are concerned with the ontology of language regarding its nature and its relation with broader social structures. In other words, such concerns can, firstly, justify the identity of sociolinguistics being either a branch of sociology, or linguistics, or even more broadly, anthropology. They can also delineate the contour of the macro vis-à-vis micro research subjects: are languages seen as separate systems, or inseparable but relatively fixed systems or an integrated construction in relation to their social dimensions of power, ideology and hegemony?

Such ontological concerns are important, because different approaches to research may be engendered accordingly. For instance, variational sociolinguistics is concerned with the linguistic differences within a language (standard language vis-à-vis its variations in dialects) and examines how these differences are linked to social aspects of linguistic practices, such as gender and social status. These differences within a certain category of language may be placed in the changing situations of various language communities or areas (e.g., Labov, 1963 , 1966 ), or in contextualized pragmatic situations (Agha, 2003 ; Eckert, 2008 ). Assumptions of separable or separate languages may be well-encapsulated in the works regarding language ideology and linguistic differentiation, such as the studies by Kroskrity ( 1998 ), Irvine and Gal ( 2000 ), as well as considerable other works on bilingualism or multilingualism. These works treat language as belonging to different standard systems (e.g., English, French, German, and so on) and can be pursued by “enumerating” these categories. In other words, these standard language systems are seen as having clear boundaries between them, and language can be researched by attributing different linguistic resources to (one of) these systems. The stance of the inseparability of language problematizes the enumeration of languages, by discrediting their explanatory potential in linguistic practices. In pedagogical contexts, transnational students are found using language features beyond the boundaries of language systems (Creese and Blackledge, 2010 ; Lewis et al., 2012 ). In the context of youth or urban culture, there are loosely fixed assumptions between language and ethnicity (Maher, 2005 ; Woolard, 1999 ). In some globalized contexts, new communications technologies as well as globalization itself are changing the traditional power structure in linguistic practices (Jacquemet, 2005 ; Jørgensen, 2008 ; Jørgensen et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, Makoni and Pennycook ( 2005 ), by advocating the disinvention of languages, problematize the process of “historical amnesia” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 , p. 149) of bi- and multilingualism, and their tradition of enumerating languages which reduces sociolinguistics to at best a “pluralization of monolingualism” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 , p. 148). However, this does mean that languages cannot be probed as standard categories. It holds a more intricate stance: on the one hand, it problematizes the separation of languages, as language is characterized by fluidity in multi-ethnic settings; on the other hand, it assumes the fixity of the relationship between a given (standard) language and its corresponding identity, ethnicity, and other societal factors (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010 ); fluidity and fixity, however, are not binary attributes that exclude each other; they coexist, mutually influence each other in real-life linguistic practices. By the same token, Blackledge and Creese ( 2010 ) and Martin-Jones et al. ( 2012 ) also hold a dynamic view on language and identity: while language functions as “heritage” (see Blackledge and Creese, 2010 , pp. 164–180) and the positioning or maintenance of national identity, the bondage, however, frequently loosens as it is always contested, resisted and “disinvented” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 ). Table 1 illustrates three kinds of sociolinguistic conceptualizations of language.

The above discussion briefly delineates how contemporary sociolinguistic studies attempt to capture the complex ways in which the notion of language is construed, resisted or reinvented in and through practices. Most of these approaches are based on the traditional assumption of language as written signs and symbols in its verbal forms. Other forms of resources are generally seen as contexts where these verbal signs and symbols take place. They are contextual facets that contribute to the ideological and sociological corollary of language use, but they are not seen as ontological components in linguistics. Later developments, which integrate multimodal studies into sociolinguistics, show differing stances regarding the ontology of language, as shown in the next section.

Language in vis-à-vis as multimodal construct

Jewitt ( 2013 , p. 141) defines multimodality as “an inter-disciplinary approach that understands communication and representation to be more than about language”. This should be seen as a definition oriented toward social semiotics, in which different semiotic resources are seen as various modes of representation or communication through semiosis. For a sociolinguistic version of the definition, we prefer to interpret it as language in vis-à-vis as a multimodal construct. By using the word “construct”, we would like to point out that multimodality or multimodal conventions enter into sociolinguistic studies because they are socially constructed; that is, sociolinguists research these multimodal dimensions because they are semiotic resources and practices which are constructed by social subjects with power, manipulation and ideology. They are not neutral resources by which people communicate information or by which the process of meaning-making, or semiosis, is realized. Instead, they are a social construct that constitutes the type of Foucauldian knowledge in which sociological power and ideology lie at the core. In this sense, the notions, frameworks, and approaches that we discuss as follows are socially critical in nature and are predominantly related to socially constructed ideologies such as hegemony, power, and identity. As Makoni and Pennycook ( 2005 ) note, languages are “invented” by the dominant (colonial) groups through classification and naming in history; they are not neutral practices and they are constructed and invested with ideologies, power and inequality. Sociolinguistics thus needs a historically critical perspective. In fact, since its birth, sociolinguistics has been a discipline focusing on language use in relation to socially critical issues, such as gender, race, class and politics. This focus can date back as early as Labov’s ( 1963 , 1966 ) ethnographical research on variations of English on the island of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts and in New York City. The sound change or phonetic features are studied in relation to ethnicity, social stratification and class. Agha ( 2003 ) and Eckert ( 2008 ) also probe the phonetic features or regional change of variations in relation to ethnicity and social and economic status.

In fact, the above-mentioned concerns of sociolinguistics are also consistent with CDA (see Wang and Jin, 2022 ; Wang and Yang, 2022 ), especially multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA), which also contributes to the research trend in terms of language in multimodality. Kress and van Leeuwen ( 1996 ) postulates a set of visual grammar based on systemic functional grammar. Machin ( 2016 ) and Machin and Mayr ( 2012 ) and other scholars have also adopted MCDA in various types of discourse. Semiotic resources other than language are analysed to reveal the social construct of power, ideology, and inequality in relation to verbal resources (Wang, 2014 , 2016a , 2016b ). Language in the multimodal construct in sociolinguistics is quite similar to the social semiotic and critical discourse approach to multimodality: language is seen as one type of resource, amongst other non-language resources (visual, aural, embodied, and spatial) in the meaning-making process. The difference lies in that sociolinguistic approaches toward language in multimodality have much more focus on social interaction, power and ideology and their research frequently includes ethnographical data and observations. Language as a multimodal construct, by contrast, sees language as a more integral part of multimodal resources, and vice versa; less distinct boundaries are seen as existing between languages and non-languages. These two trends of conceptions are discussed below.

Language in multimodal construct

To place language studies in the multimodal construct is not a new practice in sociolinguistics. Agha ( 2003 , p. 29) analyses the Bainbridge cartoon, treating accent not as “object of metasemiotic scrutiny”, but as an integral element in “the social perils of improper demeanour in many sign modalities” such as dress, posture, gait and gesture. His discussion demonstrates how language studies can be embedded in a larger multimodal scope. Language is contextualized by its peripheral multimodal paralinguistic sign systems. In Eckert ( 2008 , p. 25), the process of “bricolage” (Hebdige, 1984 ), in which “individual resources can be interpreted and combined with other resources to construct a more complex meaningful entity”, is linked to the style and language variations which reflect social meaning. She gives examples of how the clothing of students at Palo Alto High School affords them certain types of styles to convey social meaning. Eckert ( 2001 ), Coupland ( 2003 , 2007 ) and other scholars’ research represent the “third-wave” sociolinguistic studies, which see the use of variation in terms of personal and social styles (Eckert, 2012 ). Language and other semiotic resources constitute a stylistic complex that makes social meaning and constructs social styles and identities together. Goodwin ( 2007 ) extensively encompasses multimodal interaction in the examination of participation, stance and affect in a “homework” interaction between a father and his daughter, where gaze, gesture, and the spatial environment are taken into account. Goodwin’s research is partly premised on Bourdieu’s ( 1991 , pp. 81–89) associating bodily hexis with habitus , which is also a notion that is multimodal in itself. The deployment of different bodily modes in different contexts of participation (such as homework, archaeology, and surgery) depends on conventions of various social practices or their respective habitus .

Research regarding language in multimodal construct shares some common ground with the social semiotic approach towards multimodality. First, in communication, there are different modes of resources or semiotic types that convey social meaning and embed ideology. Second, these resources consist of language and “non-language”: the former being written or spoken signs and symbols that social actors use to communicate, and the latter being visual, aural, or embodied ones in that language are situated. Third, meaning-making is done through the orchestration of these resources.

In contrast to social semiotic approaches, with an anthropology-oriented concern, language in the multimodal construct as a sociological and sociolinguistic approach usually bases itself on ethnographical observations of social interaction. Language is seen as a component in social interactional discourse; other semiotic modes or resources are also important resources through which language use is contextualized. To be more specific, language in multimodal construct shows concerns with language as one type of semiotic resource that is placed in multimodal contexts in the following aspects:

First, meaning-making through other resources is seen as “add-ons” to that of language. In other words, language indexes social meaning and ideology in collaboration with other types of resources. An example is Agha’s ( 2003 ) analysis of the Bainbridge cartoon in which clothes, demeanour, and even body shape work in collaboration with accent in conveying register and social status. Second, language as one type of social meaning-making resource can be conceptualized in relation to the meaning-making process of other resources. For example, the process of “bricolage” is probed in relation to variations with their indexed styles and social categorization in terms of “gender and adolescence” (Eckert, 2008 , p. 458). This concept is used to offer clues regarding how “the differential use of variables constituted distinct styles associated with different communities of practice” (Eckert, 2008 , p. 458). Third, language is one of the communicative modes in social interactional discourse. It does not necessarily take the central role, because other types of resources, such as gestures, gaze, and the environment where these actions take place, jointly constitute the social meaning-making process. This can be best encapsulated in Goodwin’s ( 2007 ) analysis of the “homework” interaction between a father and his daughter. In this quite mundane interactional discourse, the father uses different embodied actions to negotiate different moral and affective stances through the “homework interaction” with his daughter. Conversation as a linguistic resource plays a role in the interaction, while embodied actions are key factors in affecting these stances.

Language as a multimodal construct

A slightly different approach to studies of language in multimodal contexts is to view it as a multimodal construct: either in the way that language is considered as autonomously constituting the semiotic texture (e.g., in the art form of the “text art” where text is also seen as picture) or in the way that some traditionally assumed extra-linguistic modes are considered as special forms or dimensions of language. This trend of research includes recent studies on language in space, social interactional multimodal discourse analysis, and new concepts or conceptualizations of language in society, as discussed below.

Language in space: semiotic landscape, place semiotics, and discourse geography

Jaworski and Thurlow ( 2010 ) review the notion of spatialization , that is, the semiotics and discursivity of space (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 ), and the extension of the notion of the linguistic landscape. By so doing, they frame the concept of semiotic landscape as encapsulating how written discourse interacts with other multimodal discursive resources with blurring boundaries in between.

In their opinion, space is “not only physically but also socially constructed, which necessarily shifts absolutist notions of space towards more communicative or discursive conceptualizations” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 7). Sociological research on space thus is more oriented toward spatialization, “the different processes by which space comes to be represented, organized and experienced” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 6). This spatialization—as represented discursively—is intrinsically multimodal:

Echoing the sentiments of Kress and van Leeuwen quoted at the start of this chapter, Markus and Cameron argue that ‘[b]uildings themselves are not representations’ (p. 15), but ways of organizing space for their users; in other words, the way buildings are used and the way people using them relate to one another, is largely dependent on the spoken, written and pictorial texts about these buildings… Architecture and language (spoken and written) may then form an even more complex, multi-layered landscape (or cityscape) combining built environment, writing, images, as well as other semiotic modes, such as speech, music, photography, and movement…(Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , pp. 19–20)

The “spatial turn” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 6) in sociolinguistics thus adds the analytical dimensions of multimodal resources to the traditional concept of the linguistic landscape. Written language itself does convey social meaning and ideologies, while it is situated in materiality (the materials it is written on) and spatiality (the places where it appears). The concept of the semiotic landscape blurs the traditional boundary between language and non-language.

Different from social semiotic approaches towards multimodality, researchers of semiotic landscape pay predominant attention to the “metalinguistic or metadiscursive nature of ideologies” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 11). In Kallen’s words, the concept of semiotic landscape starts from the assumption that “sinage is indexical of more than the ostensive message of the sign”. (Kallen, 2010 , p. 41); signage indexes ideologies that are embedded in, or indicated by, different types of space or spatiality: city centre, tourist places, districts and so on. Less interest is invested in the process of semiosis regarding how different modes of signs are orchestrated to communicate information, which is one of the primary endeavours of social semiotics (Li and Wang, 2022 ; Wang, 2014 , 2019 ; Wang and Li, 2022 ). As such, in ethnographical studies or data analysis, language, materiality, and spatiality are usually seen as interwoven with each other, with no distinct boundaries in between; or at least, boundary-marking is not the primary concern of semiotic landscape.

In the same vein, Scollon and Scollon ( 2003 , p. 2) coin the term “geosemiotics” (or “place semiotics”) which is “the study of the social meaning of signs and discourses and of our actions in the material world”. Their research objects are signs in public places. The conceptual framework of “geosemiotics” sees language as a multimodal construct in terms of the following aspects. First, verbal language is analysed by using social semiotic approaches to visuals. Code preference (regarding which language is seen as “primary” language) shown on signs or buildings is analysed by using Kress and van Leeuwen’s ( 1996 , p. 208) conception of compositional meaning indexed by different positions in pictures. Second, language is seen as multimodal itself. Language on signs or buildings is analysed in terms of the multimodal inscription (see Scollon and Scollon, 2003 , pp. 129–142) that includes fonts, letter form, material quality, layering and state changes. Third, the emplacement (referring to meaning-making through positioning signs in different places) in geosemiotics, similar to Jaworski and Thurlow’s ( 2010 ) approach towards the semiotic landscape, is predominantly concerned with spatiality and metalinguistic or metadiscursive ideology, rather than the interaction and orchestration of different modes (language vis-à-vis non-language) in semiosis.

Similar to the concepts of semiotic landscape and place semiotics, Gu ( 2009 , 2012 ) postulates the framework of four-borne discourse and discourse geography. Based on Blommaert’s ( 2005 , p. 2) view of discourse as “language-in-action”, Gu analyses the language and activities in social actors’ trajectories of time and space in the land-borne situated discourse (LBSD): a type of discourse categorized by Gu ( 2009 ) according to different types of spatiality as carriers and places where the discourses take place. In Gu’s ( 2012 ) conceptualizations, language and discourse are metaphorically spatialized: language is seen in terms of the place where it takes place. Multimodality is evaluated based on space (Gu, 2009 ). Though it is arguable to what extent language is seen as a conflation of modes or semiotic attributes in Gu ( 2009 ), his work demarcates an ambivalent boundary between language and the “non-language”. Also, in “spatializing” language as discourse geography, it represents language and discourse as a PLACE or SPACE metaphor that is multimodal itself. In addition, it analyses the translation between different modes, for instance, the “modalization” of written language into visuals and sounds; visuals are also seen as forms of “modalized” language and vice versa. As such, Gu ( 2009 ) also represents the “spatial turn” of sociolinguistics which can be seen as the research trend that regards language as multimodal construct.

In general, the trend to spatialize language and discourse (or the “spatial turn”), with the concepts or frameworks such as semiotic landscape, place semiotics, and discourse geography, treats language as multimodal construct in the following two aspects. First, it focuses on metalinguistic or metadiscursive ideologies that are embedded in different modes of signs or symbols; also, Gu’s research metaphorically theorizes social interaction through multimodality. In other words, it posits that language itself is multimodal or modalizable in meaning-making. Written language has its multimodal dimensions such as facets of its inscription including fonts, letterform, material quality, layering and state changes (Scollon and Scollon, 2003 ). Different forms of language are multimodal in terms of spatiality: they can be naturally multimodal and aural-visual for instance in televised discourse; written language can also be “modalized” (Gu, 2009 , p. 11) into visuals (Gu, 2009 ). Overall, language is either considered as signs in the spatialized system or actions in trajectories of activities. It is an integral part of multimodal construct, where other modes (visual, gesture, action, and so on) are not peripheral or auxiliary, but frequently they also belong to linguistic resources, for instance, the visual resources in text arts.

Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective

There are sociolinguistic approaches towards multimodality that combine social interactional sociolinguistics (Goffman, 1959 , 1963 , 1974 ), social semiotic approach towards multimodality (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996 ), and intercultural communication (Wertsch, 1998 ). We summarize these approaches as multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective, which include mediated discourse analysis (Scollon and Scollon, 2003 ) and multimodal interaction analysis (Norris, 2004 ); the latter grew out of the former.

Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective focus on people’s daily actions and interactions, and the environment and technologies with(in) which they take place. This trend of research sees discourse as (embedded in) social interaction and sets out to investigate social action through multimodal resources used in daily interaction, such as gestures, postures, and language (see Jones and Norris, 2005 ). In Norris’s ( 2004 ) framework for multimodal interaction analysis, units of analysis are a system of layered and hierarchical actions including the lower-level actions such as an utterance of spoken language, a gesture, or a posture, and the higher-level actions consisting of chains of higher-level actions. Norris ( 2004 ) also coins the term “modal density” to refer to the complexity of modes a social actor uses to produce higher-level actions.

The focus on hierarchical levels of actions and the concept of “modal density” entail reflections on the question with regard to what constitute(s) mode and language. Language in multimodal interaction analysis is seen as a type of lower-level action amongst other different embodied resources that are at interactants’ disposal. These embodied resources are seen as different modes such as gesture, gaze, and proxemics. But arguably gestures and gazes in Norris ( 2004 ) are also seen as forms of language in interaction as well. Furthermore, regarding the mode of spoken language, Norris ( 2004 ) and her other works methodologically treat it as a multimodal construct where the pitches and intonation are visualized through various fonts in the wave-shaped annotation, along with the policeman’s gestures, as shown in Fig. 1 .

The policeman’s spoken language is treated as a multimodal construct where the pitches and intonation are visualized through various fonts in the wave-shaped annotation, along with his gestures.

Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective, similar to other sociolinguistic approaches to multimodality, target the meta-modal or metadiscursive facets of ideology. This is done through a bottom-up approach, that is, examining the general social categories of such as power, dominance and ideology from people’s daily (inter)action. This trend of research focuses on basic units of actions in people’s daily interaction; the conception of mode and language is oriented toward seeing language as multimodal; the methodological treatment of languages also shows this orientation. Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective are intended to reveal the ideology and power embedded in language as action. Overall, they perceive language as a multimodal construct in social (inter)action.

Metrolingualism, heteroglossia, polylanguaging and multimodality

In the second section of the paper, we mentioned the works on some similar notions such as metrolingualism and polylanguaging. In this section, we will review the latest application of the notion of metrolingualism in multimodal analysis and discuss why other related notions or approaches also encapsulate the conceptualization regarding language as a multimodal construct.

Metrolingualism is a concept postulated by Otsuji and Pennycook ( 2010 ) originally referring to “creative linguistic conditions across space and borders of culture, history and politics, as a way to move beyond current terms such as multilingualism and multiculturalism” (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010 , p. 244). Their later works (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2014 , 2015a , 2015b ) develop the concept and reformulate it as a broader notion encompassing the everyday language use in the city and linguistic landscapes in urban settings.

In Pennycook and Otsuji ( 2014 , 2015b ), metrolingualism involves the practice of “metrolingual multitasking” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 15), in which “linguistic resources, everyday tasks and social space are intertwined” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 15). Metrolingualism thus is not only concerned with the mixed use of linguistic resources (from different languages), but it involves how language use is involved in broader multimodal practices such as (embodied) actions accompanying or included in the metrolingual process, (changing) space or places where these actions and language use take place, and the objects in the environment. Pennycook and Otsuji ( 2015b ) include an olfactory mode in their analysis of the metrolingual practices in cities. Smell is represented through linguistic or pictorial signs in the city and suburb to constitute “smellscapes” in relation to social activities, ethnicities, gender and races. Metrolingual smellscapes are represented through the conflation of written and visual signs and symbols (e.g., street signs), social activities (e.g., buying and selling, and riding a bus), objects (e.g., spices), and places or spaces (e.g., suburb markets, coffee shops, buses and trains). The conventional distinction between language and the non-language is less important, or not at issue here, as smells have to be represented through language or visuals, and more resources are conceptualized as metrolingual other than languages.

Language in Pennycook and Otsuji’s ( 2014 , 2015a , 2015b ) conception of metrolingualism, in this regard, is seen as being integrated into different types of activities and actions; it is also spatialized in the sense that metrolingual practice is seen as involving the organization of space, the relationship between “locution and location” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 84), (historical) layers of cities (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 140). The spatialization is intrinsically multimodal, which we have discussed in earlier sections.

In relation to metrolingualism, Jaworski ( 2014 ) briefly reviews the history of arts and writing, from which he chose the art form of “text art” as his research subject. Referring to the notion of metrolingualism, he sees these art forms as “metrolingual art”, where language interacts with other modes or is seen as part of the visual mode. He suggests that it be useful to “extend the range of semiotic features amenable to metrolingual usage to include whole multimodal resources” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 151). The multimodal representations in text art are realized by mixing, meshing and queering of the linguistic features, as well as by its relation to a “melange of styles, genres, content, and materiality” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 151). In this regard, the multimodal affordances (Kress, 2010 ; Jewitt, 2009 ) realized by materiality (e.g., papers, cloths, walls where the language is written), media (e.g., soundtrack, video, moving images, etc.), and styles (e.g., fonts, letterform, layering like add-ons or decorations) are an integral part of the metrolingualism. Subsequently, he postulates that it would be useful to align the concept of heteroglossia with metrolingualism, so as “to extend the idea of metrolingualism beyond ‘hybrid and multilingual’ speaker practices (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010 , p. 244) and move towards a more ‘generic’ view of metrolingualism as a form of heteroglossia” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 152). In this way, it relates the subject position taken by the producers of the text arts to their social orientation or alignment as regards power, domination, hegemony, and ideology in a broader social realm. This is also in line with Bailey’s discussion about heterogliossia: “(a) heteroglossia can encompass socially meaningful forms in both bilingual and monolingual talk; (b) it can account for the multiple meanings and readings of forms that are possible, depending on one’s subject position, and (c) it can connect historical power hierarchies to the meanings and valences of particular forms in the here-and-now” (Bailey, 2007 , pp. 266–267; also quoted in Jaworski, 2014 , p. 153). Overall, Jaworski ( 2014 ) shows how metrolingualism and heteroglossia can be used to analyse features of language and their place in multimodal construct. He also discusses how other notions which are similar to metrolingualism may bear a relationship with multimodality in that they stress “the importance of linguistic features (rather than discrete languages) as resources for speakers to achieve their communicative aims” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 138).

Apart from the concepts of metrolingualism and heteroglossia, Jaworski ( 2014 ) touches upon the relationship between polylanguaging and multimodality, but he does not elaborate on it. Jørgensen ( 2008 ) demonstrates how polylanguaging is concerned with the use of language features in language practice among adolescents in superdiverse societies. Some of these language features “would be difficult to categorize in any given language” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 25); that is, they do not belong to any standard language system (e.g., English, Chinese, German). In addition, emoticons are frequently used in communication via social networking software. If some of these language features do not belong to any given language, it is difficult to say whether they can be seen as languages. The attention on features of language hence blurs the boundary between language and other semiotic resources. Of course, these features can be seen as a type of linguistic (lexical, morphemic or phonemic) units which still belong to language, but they are frequently used in multimodal meaning-making. Below I use Jørgensen et al.’s ( 2011 , p. 26) example (Fig. 2 ) to illustrate this.

The “majority boy” makes use of resources from the minority’s language (the word “shark”).

Jørgensen et al.’s analysis of this example focuses on the “majority boy” using the word “shark”, which is a loan word from Arabic. As a majority member, he is using the minority’s language to which he is not entitled. Judging by the interaction, it can be seen that “both interlocutors are aware of the norm and react accordingly” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 25). As such he noted that one feature of polylanguaging is “the use of resources associated with different ‘languages’ even when the speaker knows very little of these” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 25).

What also needs attention but is not discussed by Jørgensen et al. ( 2011 ), is the interlocutors’ creative way to use these features in polylanguaging: the word “shark” is written as a prolonged “shaarkkk” in terms of its phonetic and visual effects. The creative configuration of the language feature “shark” functions to draw other interlocutors’ attention toward the polylanguaging practice. The emoticon “:D” following it is to demonstrate that the speaker knows that he is using language features by violating the “normal” rules; that is, he is using the minority language features to which he is not entitled. The repeated words “cough, cough”, followed by the emoticon “:D”, also demonstrate this.

Polylanguaging, as formulated by Jørgensen et al. ( 2011 ), deviates from the tradition of multilingualism to enumerate languages, but focuses on language features that may not belong to any given language. In this sense, the emoticons or creative configuration of words can also be seen as language features—the language features that are creatively used by a virtual community of (young) netizens in communication. These features are multimodal in the following aspects. First, they visualize the polylanguaging practice by creating new forms of words, for instance, the prolonged word “shaarkkk”. This creation itself is in fact also a process of polylanguaging, in the sense that it uses the features of common language, or language in people’s daily life (that is, non-cyber language) to create new cyber-language that is used by members of a virtual community. Second, these language features utilize the multimodal resources of embodiment in polylanguaging. For example, emoticons use different letters or punctuations (as language features from people’s daily written language) to represent different facial expressions and emotions. The repetition of the words “cough, cough”, as “a reference to a cliché way of expressing doubt or scepticism” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 27) also takes on an embodied stance. It shows that the interlocutors are aware that the majority boy is using the minority’s language to which he is not entitled. Hence, this embodied stance indexes the polylanguaging practice. To summarize what is discussed above, polylanguaging entails seeing language as a multimodal construct, as interlocutors creatively adapt language features in daily communication (face-to-face or written communication not involving the internet) or utilize embodied language features when polylanguaging in online communication.

Discussion and a critical reflection

In the sections “Language as written and spoken signs and symbols” and “Language in vis-à-vis as multimodal construct” above, we delineated the ontological perceptions of language in sociolinguistics, including language as spoken and written signs and symbols, language in vis-à-vis as a multimodal construct. In teasing out various trends of approaches, language in sociolinguistics is found to have undergone several stages of development. Language as spoken and written signs and symbols have been pursued in variational sociolinguistics, bi- and multilingualism, and the latest theoretical and conceptual trends of research that do not see language as separate and separable systems or codes. Language in sociolinguistics, however, has been predominantly placed in nuanced and complicated relationships with other semiotic resources. Research regarding language in multimodal constructs sees language and non-language resources as different modes, or types of resources. These different modes have boundaries, and efforts are made to see how each mode combines with each other in meaning-making; language itself is a distinctive type of mode, interdependent with but different from other modes. Research regarding language as a multimodal construct sees language itself as multimodal, language is spatialized (that is, probed in relation to various spatiality and materiality where they appear); in the social interactional approach to multimodality, it is embodied and seen as embedded in a layered and hierarchical system of modes (including gesture, posture, and intonation) in social interaction; in the latest concepts built on languaging, language is regarded as “inventions” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 ), as cross- and trans-cultural practice, instead of separable and enumerable codes, or system. Language is entangled and integrated with objects (for instance, signage, and the materiality where it appears) and multitasking with embodied resources (gestures, talking, and simultaneously doing other things).

Expanding the ontology of language from verbal resources toward various multimodal constructs has enabled sociolinguists to pursue meaning-making, indexicalities and social variations in its most authentic state. Language itself is multimodal, though it cannot be denied that language and other modes do have boundaries and distinctions (yet not always being so). Whenever a language is spoken, the stresses, intonations, and paralinguistic resources are all integrated into it. Focusing on language per se has generated fruitful outcomes in sociolinguistic studies, but placing language in the multi-semiotic resources has innovated the field and it has become the dominant trend in contemporary sociolinguistics. Both languages in or as multimodal constructs have captured the complex ways in which language interacts with multi-subjects, materiality, objects and spatiality. But it may be found that the latest research in sociolinguistics comes to increasingly see language itself as an intricate multimodal construct, as encapsulated by various new concepts and theories including translanguaging, metrolingualism, and polylanguaing, in the contexts of globalization, migration, multi-ethnicity, and new communication technologies. Language is not only seen as separable codes and systems spoken or written by a different group of people, but it entails a wider range of communicative repertoires including embodied meaning-making, objects and the environment where the written or spoken signs are placed. It hence may be speculated that sociolinguistics will be increasingly less concerned with the boundaries of language and non-language resources, but will focus more on the social constructs, social meaning, and language as a force in social change. The enumerating and separating way of studying language and multimodality—that is, delineating inter-semiotic boundaries and focusing on how modes of communication are combined in meaning-making—has generated various outcomes, especially in the field of grammar-oriented social semiotic research and MCDA. However, contemporary sociolinguistic studies have immensely expanded their scope toward a wider range of areas other than discursive, grammatical, and communicative. The three research paradigms regarding language as a multimodal construct reviewed in “Language as multimodal construct” have proved themselves as a feasible approach toward language in social interaction, geo-semiotics, and language use in ethnographical and multi-ethnic settings. The ontology of language in sociolinguistics, in this regard, may be perceived in terms of the sociology and societal facets of multimodal construct, rather than language placed in a multitude of semiotic types or the verbal resources per se. A critical reflection on the ontology of language is one of the prerequisites of innovations in contemporary linguistics, which is also the objective of this comprehensive review.

As can be seen through the above discussion, there are several versions of the perception of language in sociolinguistics. First, perceptions of language as a written or verbal system are moving from, or have moved from, the enumerating traditions bi- or multi-lingualism towards seeing language as an inseparable entity with fixity and fluidity. In other words, new approaches in sociolinguistics come to see languages as comprising different features, repertories, or resources, rather than different or discrete standard languages such as English, French, German and so on. The negotiation, construction, or attribution of ethnicity, identity, power and ideologies through language also has taken on a more dynamic and diverse look. Second, there is sociolinguistic research that places language with in the multimodal construct. Language is seen as being contextualized by other multimodal semiotics that is seen as “non-language”. However, more research comes to see language as multimodal construct; that is, language, be it written or spoken, is multimodal in itself as it comprises multimodal elements such as type, font, materiality, intonation, embodied representations and so on. It is also activated (seen as actions or activities) or spatialized in different approaches such as mediated discourse analysis, multimodal interaction analysis, geosemiotics, semiotic landscape, and metrolingualism discussed earlier. Third, these changing perceptions of languages in sociolinguistics result from researchers’ innovative efforts to view language from different perspectives. More importantly, they arise from the fact that language itself is also changing as society changes. As mentioned in the beginning, the world has been increasingly globalized and communications technologies have fundamentally changed the ways people interact with each other. Linguistic practices are complicated by the super-diversity of ethnic fluidity (e.g., the diversity of ethnic groups and the ever-present changes in ethnic structure), communications technologies, and globalized cross-cultural art.

In sum, it can be argued that contemporary sociolinguistics has become increasingly concerned with languaging (trans-, poly-, metro-, and pluri- and so on), rather than languages as a type of (static and fixed) verbal resource with demarcated boundaries separating them from other multimodal resources. Language is multimodal; it is embedded in or represents social activities, places or spaces, objects, and smells. Language in society belongs to and constitutes the “semiotic assemblage” (Pennycook, 2017 ) that can be better analysed holistically so as to reach an understanding of “how different trajectories of people, semiotic resources and objects meet at particular moments and places” (Pennycook, 2017 , p. 269). At a fundamental level of sociolinguistic ontology, this trend of research reflects the changing ways in which sociolinguists come to understand what language is and how it should be understood as part of a more general range of semiotic practices.

Agha A (2003) The social life of cultural value. Language Commun 23(3–4):231–273

Article   Google Scholar  

Berger P, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday, New York

Google Scholar  

Blackledge A, Creese A (2010) Multilingualism: a critical perspective. Continuum, London

Blommaert J (Ed.) (1999) Language ideological debates, vol. 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

Blommaert J (2005) Discourse: a critical introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Bourdieu P (1991) Language and symbolic power [Thompson JB (ed and introd)] (trans: Raymond G, Adamson M). Polity Press/Blackwell, Cambridge

Bailey B (2007) Heteroglossia and boundaries. In: Heller M (Ed.) Bilingualism: a social approach. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 257–274

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cameron D (1990) Demythologizing sociolinguistics: why language does not reflect society. In: Joseph J, Taylor T (eds) Ideologies of language. Routledge, London, pp. 79–93

Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Coupland N (2003) Sociolinguistic authenticities. J Sociolinguist 7(3):417–431

Coupland N (2007) Style: language variation and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Creese A, Blackledge A (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? Mod Language J 94:103–115

Eckert P, Rickford JR (Eds.) (2001) Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Eckert P (2008) Variation and the indexical field. J Sociolinguist 12(4):453–476

Eckert P (2012) Three waves of variation study: the emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annu Rev Anthropol 41(1):87–100

García O, Li W (2014) Translanguaing: language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York, NY

Goffman E (1963) Behavior in public places. Free Press, New York, NY

Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis. Harper & Row, New York, NY

Goodwin C (2007) Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse Soc 18(1):53–73

Gu Y (2009) Four-borne discourses: towards language as a multi-dimensional city of history. In: Li W, Cook V (eds.) Linguistics in the real world. Continuum, London, pp. 98–121

Gu Y (2012) Discourse geography. In: Gee JP, Hanford M (eds.) The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp. 541–557

Hebdige D (1984) Framing the youth ‘problem’: the construction of troublesome adolescence. In: Garms-Homolová V, Hoerning EM, Schaeffer D (eds.) Intergenerational Relationships. Lewiston, NY: C. J. Hogrefe, pp.184–195

Holliday N (2021) Prosody and sociolinguistic variation in American Englishes. Annu Rev Linguist 7:55–68

Irvine JT, Gal S (2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity PV (ed.) Regimes of language: ideologies, polities, and identities. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 35–84

Jaworski A (2014) Metrolingual art: multilingualism and heteroglossia. Int J Biling 18(2):134–158

Jaworski A, Thurlow C (eds.) (2010) Semiotic landscapes: language, image, space. Continuum, New York

Jewitt C (2009) Different approaches to multimodality. In: Jewitt C (ed) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 28–39

Jewitt C (2013) Multimodality and digital technologies in the classroom. In: de Saint-Georges I, Weber J (eds) Mulitlingualism and multimodality: current challenges for educational studies. Sense Publishing, Boston, pp. 141–152

Jørgensen JN (2008) Poly-lingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. Int J Multiling 5(3):161–176

Jørgensen JN, Karrebæk MS, Madsen LM, Møller JS (2011) Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities 13(2):23–37

Jacquemet M (2005) Transidiomaticpractices: language and power in the age of globalization. Language Commun 25:257–277

Jones R, Norris S (2005) Discourse as action/discourse in action. In: Norris S, Jones R (eds) Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp. 1–3

Kallen J (2010) Changing landscapes: language, space and policy in the Dublin linguistic landscape. In: Jaworski A, Thurlow C (eds) Semiotic landscapes: language, image, space. New York: Continuum, pp. 41–58

Kress GR (2010) Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge, London

Kress GR, van Leeuwen T (1996) Reading Images: the grammar of graphic design. Routledge, London

Kroskrity PV (1998) Arizona Tewa Kiva speech as a manifestation of linguistic ideology. In: Schieffelin BB, Woolard KA, Kroskrity P (eds) Language ideologies: practice and theory. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 103–122

Labov W (1963) The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19(3):273–309

Labov W (1966) Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. Sociolinguistics 1966:84–113

Lawson R (2020) Language and masculinities: history, development, and future. Annu Rev Linguist 6(1):409–434

Lewis WG, Jones B, Baker C (2012) Translanguaging: origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educ Res Eval 18(7):641–654

Li W, Wang J (2022) Chronotopic identities in contemporary Chinese poetry calligraphy. Poznan Stud Contemp Linguist 58(4):861–884

Machin D (2016) The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse Soc 27(3):322–334

Machin D, Mayr A (2012) How to do critical discourse analysis: a multimodal introduction. Sage, London

Maher J (2005) Metroethnicity, language, and the principle of Cool. Int J Sociol Language 11:83–102

Makoni S, Pennycook A (2005) Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Crit Inq Language Stud 2(3):137–156

Martin-Jones M, Blackledge A, Creese A (eds) (2012) The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. Routledge, London

Norris S (2004) Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. Routledge, London

Otsuji E, Pennycook A (2010) Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. Int J Multiling 7:240–254

Pennycook A (2017) Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. Int J Multiling 14(3):1–14

Pennycook A, Otsuji E (2014) Metrolingual multitasking and spatial repertoires: ‘Pizza mo two minutes coming’. J Socioling 18(2):161–184

Pennycook A, Otsuji E (2015a) Making scents of the landscape. Linguist Landsc 1(3):191–212

Pennycook A, Otsuji E (2015b) Metrolingualism. Language in the city. Routledge, New York

Sankoff G (2018) Language change across the lifespan. Annu Rev Linguist 4:297–316

Schegloff EA (1992) In another context. In: Duranti A, Goodwin C (eds) Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 191–227

Schegloff EA (1998a) Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and poststructuralism in dialogue: reply to Wetherell. Discourse Soc 9(3):413–416

Schegloff EA (1998b) Reply to Wetherell. Discourse Soc 9(3):457–60

Schegloff EA (1999) ‘Schegloff’s texts’ as ‘Billig’s data’: a critical reply. Discourse Soc 10(4):558–572

Scollon R, Scollon S (2003) Discourses in place: language in the material world. Routledge, New York

Saussure F (1916) Course in general linguistics. Duckworth, London

Wang J (2014) Criticising images: critical discourse analysis of visual semiosis in picture news. Crit Arts 28(2):264–286

Wang J (2016a) Multimodal narratives in SIA’s “Singapore Girl” TV advertisements—from branding with femininity to branding with provenance and authenticity? Soc Semiot 26(2):208–225

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wang J (2016b) A new political and communication agenda for political discourse analysis: critical reflections on critical discourse analysis and political discourse analysis. Int J Commun 10:19

ADS   Google Scholar  

Wang J (2019) Stereotyping in representing the “Chinese Dream” in news reports by CNN and BBC. Semiotica 2019(226):29–48

Wang J, Jin G (2022) Critical discourse analysis in China: history and new developments. In: Aronoff M, Chen Y, Cutler C (eds) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.909

Wang J, Li W (2022) Situating affect in Chinese mediated soundscapes of suona. Soc Semiot. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2022.2139171

Wang J, Yang M (2022) Interpersonal-function topoi in Chinese central government’s work report (2020) as epidemic (counter-) crisis discourse. J Language Politics. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22022.wan

Wertsch JV (1998) Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Woolard K (1999) Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism. J Linguist Anthropol 8(1):3–29

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our thanks are extended to Dr. William Dezheng Feng for his constructive advice on the earlier drafts of the paper. This work is supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Project No. 18CYY050); the Foreign Language Education Foundation of China (Project No. ZGWYJYJJ11A030); and the Self-Determined Research Funds of CCNU from MOE for basic research and operation (Project No. CCNU20TD008).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

Jiayu Wang, Guangyu Jin & Wenhua Li

Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China

Guangyu Jin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All three authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. JW mainly participated in drafting the work. GJ revised it critically for important intellectual content. WL participated in major intellectual contributions to the Chinese versions of the paper (unpublished); her ideas and points are integrated into the final version of this paper. All three authors are corresponding authors responsible for the final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jiayu Wang , Guangyu Jin or Wenhua Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, J., Jin, G. & Li, W. Changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistics. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 91 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01574-5

Download citation

Received : 12 September 2022

Accepted : 20 February 2023

Published : 08 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01574-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Home / Essay Samples / Science / Language / The Importance of Language Essay

The Importance of Language Essay

• Category: Science
• Topic: Language Diversity , Second Language

Pages: 1 (391 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Albert Einstein Essays

Mountains Essays

Japanese Essays

Energy Essays

Bilingualism Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->