SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE CHANGE

Els Oksaar

I

The development of linguistics during the last two decades has been marked by an increasing emphasis on socio-, psycho-, pragma-, and paedolinguistics. Common to all these areas is their contribution to a renaissance of Empiricism, which is rooted in dissatisfaction with the results of linguistic theories based on an idealized speaker/listener in a homogeneous society, rather than on the language of real speaker/listeners in a real, i.e. heterogeneous society. This renewed emphasis on Empiricism was embodied in two major approaches to sociolin- guistic research in the sixties: in the correlational approach of Labov and Bernstein, and in the interactional approach of Hymes and Gumperz. The significance of these two approaches will not be discussed here, but it is important to note that both approaches have focused attention on linguistic varieties and the importance of research into language change in its social context.

The study of language change in its social context is by no means new. As early as 1867, Whitney (1867:18) remarked that language change is to be traced to the reciprocal influence of the individual speaker and the language community. The social aspect of language change has been mentioned by Bréal, Meillet, and de Saussure, who emphasized the connection between the change of signs and the change in social systems. Hermann Paul, Otto Jespersen, Wilhelm Havers, and Hugo Moser delineated the conditions and motives that DETERMINE language change. Havers (1931: 144 ff.) lists several: the desire for lucidity, for emotional release, for conservation of strength, for aesthetic expression; the tendency towards order; and social motives, e.g. politeness and consideration. Paul (1909: 34) spoke of language change as a result of the individual’s spontaneous activity and the constant influence on him of other individuals. He did not, however, treat the relationship between the individual and his complete social environment, in which not only linguistic behavior patterns, but also socioculturally determined behavior patterns serve as norms.

Although the principle of the Prague School of structuralism—that language change must be viewed as a part of synchronic linguistics—is well-known, no consequences for research into the dynamic synchrony of various sectors of Modern German have yet been drawn. In order to understand the conditions and mechanisms of language change, we have to know how language is USED. In my opinion, linguists have not sufficiently considered the possibility that the same conditions and motives that lead to the “Umgestaltung der Sprache,” as Havers (1931:144 ff.) puts it, can also direct language use. Because language use ranks above language change, the conditions of language use must be examined first. One can hypothesize that the conditions and motives controlling language use also cause language shift.

For example, in the field of lexis the phenomenon of up- and downgrading in the occupational and professional fields can be traced throughout the history of various languages. In contemporary German, Dienstmädchen has been replaced by Hausgehilfin and Hausangestellte; in American English beautician is often used instead of hairdresser, and landscape architect replaced gardener, to give only a few examples. This phenomenon can be correctly interpreted only by means of the social frames to which the designations belong. Up- and downgrading depend largely on connotations: Hausangestellte evokes socially more favorable connotations than Dienstmädchen; cf. Raumpflegerin/Putzfrau (Oksaar 1976). The strongest conditioning factor determining the use of the new words, and the downgrading in the social motivation of the older words, is social prestige. It must be emphasized, however, that not all groups in society use these new words with the same attitudinal motivation. In order to treat this aspect of language change more thoroughly, Hermann Paul’s primarily psychological theses must be combined with sociological theses. The examination of human behavior patterns, including language behavior, may be approached from several perspectives: cultural, economic, and social.

The aim of this paper is the analysis of several so- ciocultural phenomena that could influence language change in the dynamic synchrony of the present time. I will present examples of the interaction between social and linguistic variation.

II

The starting point of any such analysis is the individual as a member of various social networks. His linguistic repertoire can be assigned to one or several languages, dialects, and sociolects. The crucial point is that an individual can have mastered heterogeneous expression and content structures, the use of which is dependent upon various sociocultural conditions. He not only selects but also interprets the elements of communication in various ways, depending on his various roles in society, whether he is using language as a teacher, a father, a politician, an employer, and so on. The existence of such structures can be experimentally proved, for example through tests where informants are asked to determine who says a sentence to whom (Oksaar 1977b).

The ability of the subjects to identify single sentences as belonging to communicative acts in which some variants even “break” the rules of normative grammar leads to the following considerations: One must assume the existence of a variable communicative competence of language users not only at the interlanguage level of bi- and multilingual persons but also at an intralanguage level. Although certain sequences in tests can be classified as adult speech by children or native speakers¹speech by foreigners, for example, this does not mean that adults always speak in that manner to children or native speakers to foreigners.

This fact clearly implies that the methods and certain results of interlanguage language contact research ought to be used as a realistic basis for research into intralanguage change, because the various subcodes, styles, and variants that an individual masters are in contact with each other. The results of such contacts can be identified as various types of alternations and interferences, e.g. Haben Sie Ihr Ticket schon gescheckt? There are not only linguistic but also situational interferences. Both arise in performance, in direct or indirect interaction; however, they can also become part of the language user’s competence, not only in his idiolect, but also in sociolects and at higher levels.

SITUATIONAL INTERFERENCES are deviations from the pragmatic norms of the situation in which the languages or codes are used. They are usually dependent upon sociocultural patterns; they can occur, for example, when the rules governing social relations are not followed. An example of a situational interference is when Swedish- Germans use the German du as they would use the Swedish du in communicative acts in which only the use of Sie is allowed in German. The conventions of address in the Federal Republic of Germany are changed by situational interferences also, for example in communication between students.

I have mentioned that interferences arise in interactions. Therefore, it is important to define the concept of INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE. I understand interactional competence to be a person’s ability to complete and interpret verbal and non-verbal behavior in an interaction, according to the sociocultural and psychological rules of his group. (The concept of interactional competence is more differentiated than Hymes’ (1967) “Communicative competence.”) Interactional competence is realized through communicative acts. A communicative act is the entire frame of action in which a bit of language behavior takes place. The primary elements of a communicative act are: (1) partner/audience, (2) verbal elements, (3) paralinguistic elements, (4) kinesic elements, and (5) all affective behavior characteristics. This concept of interaction/competence takes into consideration both the speaker and the listener, whereas the speech act as defined by Searle (1969) does not consider the listener.

The strategy of CODE SWITCHING, that is, the alternative use of at least two codes or subcodes with or without interferences, becomes visible in the communicative act. The communicative act forms one of the platforms for the origin and spread of variations.

The SOCIAL DIMENSION OF LINGUISTIC VARIATION can best be approached from the perspective that allows answers to the following questions: Who chooses which expression to whom, when, in which situation and why? (see Laswell 1948). How does the hearer react? His reaction is important for the spreading of the changed elements. Variables like age, sex, status, and role do not alone determine the choice of expression, but also the relation of the speaker to the listener: stranger, acquaintance, friend, relative, superior, or subordinate. The differences between native and foreign speakers’ language, or men’s and women’s language become clearer in this dimension, as well as the differences between various interactional models, e.g. in addressing people with “du” or “Sie” in German, or with a title. Here also is the source for alternation and interference as manifestations of variable competence. By no means do they originate only through the expressive and communicative functions of language; rather, they are caused by the fact that language serves as an identity factor for the speaker and an identification instrument for the listener. Expressions characteristic of the language behavior of a certain group can be used by persons outside of the group in order to be identified as members of that group. However, both of the language functions previously not given so much attention, i.e. the identity and identification functions, could also lead to not just one, but to parallel alternatives. This occurs above all when the alternative and the previously common form of expression are no longer fully acceptable for socio-psychological reasons. For example, if someone is addressed by “du” when he expects “Sie,” it can happen that he confronts this situational interference with a model new or infrequent for that situation :

Student A to student B (whom he doesn’t know) in a seminar:
Was du da gerade gesagt hast ...

Student B to student A, using a passive construction instead
of the usual Sie: Was hier soeben behauptet wurde ...

Here we can perceive the connection to the LINGUISTIC DIMENSION OF SOCIAL VARIATION. One expression can have different specific collective and social connotations for different groups of language users, whereby in turn the social variables play a role, e.g. age and sex differences. Speaker and listener can have different interpretations at this level, leading to possible changes in meaning. An interpretation is made on the basis of one’s knowledge, but at the same time from a certain point of interest. Children’s utterances illustrate this point most clearly. A seven-year-old boy from Hamburg was asked what the following saying meant: Müßiggang ist aller Laster Anfang. His answer: Das ist der erste Gang. Den legt der Laster ein und fangt an zu fahren (see Oksaar 1980).

But even with adults, it is their complex experimental background, and the so-called situation consciousness, which according to Bühler also includes knowledge of the speaker’s intention, that make possible the interpretation of an utterance (see Havers 1931:65). Differences can lead to a change of behavior, also in language. The confusion of both partners can be easily understood when the lady in Germany asks the train conductor: Do I have to pay. for the children? Answer: Not under six. Lady: Oh, wonderful. There are only three.

III

The above comments are also intended to emphasize the role of the receiver of an utterance in a transmitting of changes. This role has been given little consideration in psycho- and sociolinguistic literature, in comparison to the sender’s role, although as early as 1909 Hermann Paul (1909:VI) wrote in his criticism of Wundt that a complete understanding of language development could not be reached without consideration of the listener’s role. Wegener (1885:182) emphasized the listener’s role by claiming that the issue of language comprehension belongs in the foreground of linguistic inquiry. The listener’s grammar differs from that of the speaker, as the Petersburg Linguistic School, as well as the Prague School, have told us. HOMONYMY exists only in the listener’s grammar, leading to the above-mentioned misunderstandings.

The listener’s deviation in interpretation can also be explained by the fact that not everything is verbalized in the communicative act. The creativity of natural language depends upon its ability to not express everything, in order to avoid superfluous elements, according to Jakobson (1974:74). This level is also important for language change research. The mother who sees her son putting on his old jeans and says, Today is Sunday, has not verbally expressed what can be interpreted by the hearer as a request to change his behavior. However, the utterance, used on other days, can be idiomized quickly within the family to a prohibition—‘you shouldn’t do that.’

The expression auf den Steinen sitzen, which in Thomas Mann’s Buddenbrooks acquired the meaning ‘vereinsamt sein und sich langweilen’, shows how this idiomization process can occur. To judge by the many editions of the novel, one might have expected this saying to become commonly used, as was the case with es ist die höchste Eisenbahn. This, however, did not happen.

Such observations show that not all innovations and changes become part of the standard language, and that different levels in the process of language change are to be expected. The conditions leading to these levels have to be examined because, up to the present, almost all studies of language shift have started with its consequences and have not taken into account regional and social differences in the acceptance and spread of language innovations. The process of language change is to be seen in connection with the change in an individual’s language habits. The latter is, however, not a common object of study, because it is not retrievable in detail for the past and is considered either too difficult or as being only occasional in the present.

One should not speak of occasionality or marginality if the function of a phenomenon has not yet been studied. Such metalinguistic comments may not serve as an alibi for excluding them from linguistic observation. Weinreich et al. are correct in stating: “Not all variability and heterogeneity in language structure involves change? but all change involves variability and heterogeneity” (1968: 188). Variations in the synchrony can become norms when seen diachronically. Research into language change must be motivated into theoretical consideration of the socio- psychological aspects of the communication process.

Such variables as the communicative channel, motivation, linguistic context, and relation to non-linguistic reality, e.g. if and when social change can lead to linguistic change, must be considered in this area of research. In addition, several factors can simultaneously affect the process. If a deviation is spread by the mass media, for example in advertisements with the motive of attracting attention to the advertisement, it can reach several groups of readers and act as a language model. The following examples illustrate how several factors can work hand-in-hand (see Oksaar 1976:23).

Social changes in the Federal Republic of Germany, such as shorter work weeks and longer vacations, have led to a number of linguistic innovations, among others in occupational names: Freizeitplaner, Freizeitgestalter, Freizeitberater, Freizeithelfer and Freizeitpädagoge. One can notice linguistic consequences of this development in two areas: on the one hand, the rapid increase in the number of compounds as names for the new concepts, and on the other hand, the change in meaning of such words as Freizeit, Arbeitswoche, Wochenende, etc. Another consequence is to be found in certain types of interaction rituals, for example of the category “leave-taking.”

Instead of einen schönen Sonntag, which one traditionally said on the last workday of the week, Saturday, one now wishes ein schönes Wochenende, because the last workday is usually Friday. These examples show such changes in content spheres to be important for research into dynamic synchrony and the process of language change. Hermann Paul (1909:104) sees these changes as a direct consequence of the change of cultural relations and therefore not a change in meaning. But we notice that they can lead to the building of content variants, polysemy, and a change in labels. They are evidence of changes in the language behavior of speakers, changes which are determined by the adaptation of language to the sociocultural frame.

Formations in present-day German such as Parkstudent, Tagesmutter or Nur-Hausfrau are some of the lexical innovations that mirror social changes or attitudes and simultaneously cause innerlanguage changes of meaning. The differences between Parkstudent ‘a student that cannot study the subject he wants because of numerus clausus and is “parked” in another subject waiting for his chance’, Tagesmutter ‘a woman who takes care of a child during the day, while the mother is working’. The differences between Student, Mutter, and Kind are not the same as the differences between Werkstudent or Korp- student. The label Nur-Hausfrau makes Hausfrau an abstraction and class label; furthermore, at least one other label is implied, i.e. *Werkhausfrau ‘a woman who works in and outside of the home’. Tagesmutter is directly related to the functional change in structure of the working world caused by working women. The label Tagesmutter is the only formation with Mutter belonging to the set of occupational labels.

This type of research, at the micro-level, makes it possible for us to follow the development and effects of conflicts of content in present-day language. The above- mentioned example categories, meaning and labelling, can be easily expanded. Less attention has been paid to the phenomena of change in language behavior arising from certain differences between partners in conversation and from their adaptability. Such a process can occur when the partner or partners do not have full command of the standard code of a speech community, for example. This can lead to new subcodes. Examples of such subcodes, in different languages known as simplified speech or simplified register, are child language and foreigners’ language (Oksaar 1977a: 124-32; 1977b: 108-13) . They are marked by a simplified syntax and deviations from the norms of standard grammar. However, simplified speech is found not only in the language learning process of children and foreign speakers. Adult, chiefly female, speech to small children and the native speakers’ subcode with foreigners are also two independent variants belonging to this category. Because they are less well known, but like other subcodes can influence the process of language change by their variants, and because they illustrate well the changes in language behavior of the language users, we shall discuss them here. One must remember that these differences between speech partners and their reciprocal adaptability decisively influence the increase and differentiation of subcodes within a language community and within the linguistic competence of its individual members, as Jakobson (1974:183) emphasizes.

The subcode of adults to small children is known as baby talk; in German, where it is known as Ammensprache, systematic studies of it have not been undertaken, as is also the case with the subcode to foreign speakers. My data are based on observations of five mothers and three other caretakers in our longitudinal studies of child language in Hamburg. These data confirm sporadic observations made since the beginning of the century. The code is marked by typical intonational and paralinguistic patterns. Furthermore, speakers use phonological and grammatical modifications: They avoid difficult consonant combinations and use mainly bisyllabic words and a simple syntax: Hier Buch! Not only is the duplication of syllables conspicuous, e.g. wauwau, but also of words. For example, a mother points out a bird in a puddle and says to her two —year old: Da Vogel, macht schwimme, schwimme. The use of the third person singular in direct speech is common when an adult refers to himself or the child: Mutti kommt gleich or Wie groß ist das Kind ? or Wo ist Hansi?

The associative we is also to be found in various situations: Wir waschen uns nun die Händchen, which can have different meanings: ‘Wir waschen Deine Händchen1 or ‘Du wäschst Dir nun die Händchen’. In communicative acts in this subcode, diminutives are also more frequently used than in standard speech, e.g. mein kleines Mäuschen, or in a Southern German dialect the suffix -i: Buchi, Hausiy Betti. According to Sieberer (1950:87) not only verb diminutives such as trinki and schreibi are common in this subcode in Austria, but also forms like waserl denn ? Kruisinga (1942:9) points out that the hypocoristic forms -y and -i are limited almost exclusively to speech with small children. However, they can cross over into adult speech; Von der Gabelentz (1901:227) claims that this type of language behavior can constantly influence adult speech. This would explain “das Überhandnehmen der Diminutiva” in the Slavic languages and in some German dialects, e.g. in East Prussian.

Although this subcode has a large range of idiolectal variation and not all of its linguistic elements are used by all adults who speak to small children, the speech elements mentioned above have been shown to exist—even in the speech of those adults who deny their usage. This subcode illustrates variable interactional competence: The speaker consciously or unconsciously adapts his speech to what he thinks the level and the subcode of the child are. One must not confuse this variant with the code of the small child, as is often done. The reciprocal influence of these codes on each other leads in many languages to pet or unique names: Bob or Peppo for Guiseppe, Nenne for Sven. Systematic studies, including contrastive ones, are very important here, because the social aspect adult# child in the formation of the adult variant illustrates from a different perspective the forces determining change mentioned at the beginning of this paper: economy and vividness for emotional reasons. It is a fact that variants of this subcode also appear in adult interactions. As early as 1901, Von der Gabelentz (1901:278) pointed out that “Liebende in ihrem Gekose in die Kindersprache verfallen.” One wonders if that is correct; rather it seems to be a variant spoken both by children and adults— an “average” of their subcodes. Von der Gabelentz (1901: 278) is certainly correct in saying that this is a type of language-mixing. However, he attributes this to the irrational factors that influence the history of language. We know from present-day observations that the factors influencing language-mixing can be highly rational (Oksaar 1979), as we are dealing with basic factors of human language activity, with accommodation and assimilation of behavior patterns, with the so-called “Partnerzwang.” The analysis of the phenomenon “Partnerzwang” in various communicative acts is an important task for socio- and psycholinguistics.

With these examples we have not considered more closely the fact that a message is also transmitted by para- linguistic and kinesic means. Research into language change has hardly taken this into account, although Havers (1931:20 ff.) illustrated these parameters with examples. Speech melody, accent, rhythm, tempo, and pauses, which he calls indirect language instruments, and the external situation, posture, gestures, and facial expressions of the speaker as non-linguistic forms of expression can be determining factors in syntactic changes. However, one wonders if the well-known explanations of the origin of the relative clause, mentioned by Havers (1931:23) could not be viewed differently. It has been claimed that the sentence lch sehe das : er kommt becomes lch sehe, daβ er kommt by shifting the pause. This is a view of the situation from the speaker’s perspective. One could look at the matter from the listener’s perspective. Why should a pause be moved to a spot in the sentence where previously there was none? One could instead argue that in the sentence Ich sehe, da$ er kommt a pause has been eliminated, therefore assuming two pauses in the first place. Ich sehe—das (perhaps appearing with a kineme such as pointing)— er kommt. The implied content of the demonstrative das melts together in the listener’s reception without a pause.

The analysis of living language can help us to find hypotheses for the dynamics of the past. What can be gained by an investigation of the pre-stages of language change in the form of social and linguistic variation? In the first place, new possibilities for understanding the origin and spread of variants are opened. In the second place, one can find connections that remain hidden when language change is seen as an end condition and not as a process. Further investigations into the dimensions of social and linguistic variation will be necessary for a complete understanding of the dynamics of language change.

REFERENCES

Ferguson, C. A. 1964. Baby talk in six languages. American Anthropologist 66:103-14.

Havers, W. 1931. Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Hymes, D. 1967. Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues 23:8-28.

Jakobson, R. 1974. Aufsätze zur Linguistik und Poetik, ed. by W. Raible

Kruisinga, E. 1942. Diminutieve en affektieve suffixen in de Germaanse talen. Amsterdam: Noord-hollandsche uitgevers maatschappij.

Lasswell, H. D. 1948. The structure and function of communication in society. The communication of ideas, ed. by L. Bryson, 37- 52. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc.

Moser, H. 1955. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: C. E. Schwab.

Oksaar, E. 1965. Mittelhochdeutsch: Texte, Kommentare, Sprachkunde, Wörterbuch. Stockholm: Almqvist § Wikseil.

——. 1976. BerufsZeichnungen im heutigen Deutsch. Soziosemantische Untersuchungen. Mit deutschen und schwedischen experimentellen Kontrastierungen. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.

——. 1977a. Spracherwerb im Vorschulalter. Einführung in die Pädolinguistik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

——. 1977b. Zum Prozess des Sprachwandels : Dimensionen sozialer und linguistischer Variation. Sprachwandel und Sprachgeschichtsschreibung im Deutschen. (Sprache der Gegenwart 41: 98-117) Düsseldorf.

——. 1979. Models of competence in bilingual interaction. Sociolinguistic studies in language contact, ed. by. W. F. Mackey and J. Ornstein, 99-113. The Hague.

——. 1980. The multilingual language acquisition project. Inter national Review of Applied Psychology 29:268-9.

Paul, H. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 4th ed. Halle: Niemeyer.

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: University Press. Sieberer, A. 1950. Das Wesen des Diminutivs. Die Sprache 2:85- 121.

Von der Gabelentz, G. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig: C. H. Tauchnitz.

Wegener, Ph. 1885. Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens. Halle: Niemeyer.

Weinreich, U.; W. Labov; M. I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, ed. by W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel, 95-188. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Whitney, W. D. 1867. Language and the study of language. New York: G. Scribner and Company.