How Society Affects Language PDF

Preview

Summary

An exploration of the influence of society on the metamorphosis of language

Work Cited:

Bourdieu, Pierre, and John B. Thompson. Language and Symbolic Power. 1977.
Kiesling, F. Scott. Dude. American Speech, Vol. 79, No. 3, University of Pittsburg, Fall 2004.
...

Description

1 How Society Affects Language Language is a powerful tool that can be used to both bring people closer together, an also to push people further apart. Pierre Bourdieu and Scott F. Keisling take two very different approaches at examining the ways in which society (and the individuals in society), use language itself as a means of establishing community and correlation as well as conflict and inequality. In part one of his composition titled “Language and Symbolic Power”, Pierre Bourdieu explores the ways in which language can be used to establish the power dynamic between speakers. “One must not forget that the relations of communication par excellence,” he writes, “are also relations of symbolic power in which the power relations between speakers or their representative groups are actualized” (Bourdieu, 37). Bourdieu argues that language itself acquires real meaning and relevance through its capacity to establish conscious or unconscious relationships between speakers. These linguistic products, then, are entirely dependent upon the social space and cultural setting of a given interaction. Bourdieu goes on to introduce the concept of a “linguistic market”, which he explains to be a system built upon the economic relationships within which, certain lingual capabilities have higher “currency” than others (he refers to this as “linguistic capital”). The factors that determine value (and the rules that regulate the value of) such linguistic capital, occur through conversation and utterance. Bourdieu braches out and addresses the social and political implications that come about as a result of the inequality created in and by the linguistic market and the discrepancies in representation and favorability of various linguistic currencies. The linguistic market, according to Bourdieu, is, like many others, never a free market. The power relations within it predetermine the standards by which linguistic capital is then allocated, thus preserving the rule of the “elite” members of society (who always speak the most prestigious language).

2 In his article titled “Dude” (an account of a study done for American Speech), Scott F. Kiesling discusses the use of the word “dude” in casual linguistic interactions as a means of establishing certain rapport between speakers. The article was written as a response to the claims of older adults about the language of “young people nowadays” being inarticulate and characterized by discourse markers (i.e. “like”) and over-generalized address terms (i.e. “dude”) as “fillers” in any given context. The address term “dude” in particular appeared to be associated with the stereotype of young men – the use of “dude” was seen as an unconstrained indicator of inexpressiveness, utilized in any and every utterance. Kiesling explains that these stereotypes arise due to a fundamental misunderstanding of such linguistic forms, and that analyses show such words to in fact be “constrained in use and precisely expressive in meaning” (Keisling, 282). The data, the analysis of which Kiesling presents and draws his conclusions based upon, reported that “dude” is most often used to index a stance of cool solidarity, nonchalant effortlessness, and non-conformity. In the case of the use of dude by male speakers, it is often also a way to establish masculinity and strict heterosexuality. Kiesling goes on to explore the evolution and expansion of the use of “dude”, tracing it through history and literature: from mainly just young men addressing one another, to now include many women. “Dude” is now also used not only in addressing one individual, but perhaps also a group, or is even simply uttered as a remark. A large portion of Kiesling’s paper is dedicated to the links between the use of “dude” and images of masculinity in our society, exploring concepts of “the identity of American masculinity” back into the 1980’s. He explores also, the origins of “dude” as “surfer” or “druggie” culture talk, which is often what is taken to account for the stereotypically cool, relaxed demeanor that the term “dude” carries with it. Kiesling explains that while different communities use “dude” (and have used the term in the past) with slightly different connotations

3 and in different circumstances and contexts, the underlying purpose of the term still appears to be that of establishing “common ground” or comradery and bridging gaps between speakers. On the surface it may seem that Pierre Bourdieu and Scott F. Keisling are discussing very different elements of language use – one analyzing the balance and exchange of the linguistic “value” of certain dialects amongst communities, and the other honing in on and tackling the appearance and history of one specific term in our language – “dude”. On a deeper level, however, it becomes apparent that the two topics are very much interlinked. Keisling’s analysis of the popularized use, stereotype and stigma surrounding the word “dude” serves as an almost perfect concrete example of many of the broader sociolinguistic issues that Bourdieu discusses in his writing. Just as society is made up of individual people and their interactions, language is made up of individual words and the ways in which they combine. “Dude” is simply a microcosmic instance of the way modes and styles of language are coded and stratified in linguistic communities overall. It can be taken to represent the broader, more complex idea of linguistic currency: a word that carries with it specific implications, connotations, associations and expectations, gets accordingly assigned a “value” in language. In the case of “dude” (just as in the case of the examples that Bourdieu discusses), the linguistic value of the word has little to nothing to do with the word itself and everything to do with the cultural and political history of its use. Language is a powerful medium of representation, and our actions, decisions and conflicts as a society leave clearly legible impressions upon it.

Works Cited Bourdieu, Pierre, and John B. Thompson. Language and Symbolic Power. 1977. Kiesling, F. Scott. Dude. American Speech, Vol. 79, No. 3, University of Pittsburg, Fall 2004....