1、 2.1 Speech community2.1 .1 History of the theory on speech community2.1.3 This paper's understanding of speech community2.1.2 Definitions of speech community 'The concept of speech community' is frequently used without difficulty, but,it is difficult for all the linguists to reach an ag

2、reement on the definition of it. The following are some of the typical definitions given by linguists.The simplest definition is that of John Lyons: "Speech community is all the people who used a given language (or dialects)"(1970:326). This definition actually shifts the issue to making t

3、he definition of a language (or of a dialect) also the definition of a speech community. According to this definition, "speech community may overlap (where there are bilingual individuals) and need not have any social or cultural unity"(Hudson, 2000: 24). Clearly it is possible to delimit

4、speech communities in this sense to only to the extent that it is possible to delimit languages and dialects without referring to the community that speaks them.The next definition shifts the emphasis from shared language to interaction. A simple form of it was given by Leonard Bloomfield: "A s

5、peech community is a group of people who interact by means of speech"(1933:42). A later definition is offered by John Gumperz (1968), the founder of interactional sociolinguistics:Speech community: any human aggregate characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body o

6、f verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language use."This definition is famous for "interaction" or "density of community". Gumperz thinks members of a speech community talk more to one another than they do to outsiders, then linguis

7、tic similarity appears gradually. As a result, the boundary of community will normally be in accordance with the pattern of communication. The most influential definition puts the emphasis on shared attitudes and knowledge, rather than on shared linguistic behavior. It is given by William Labov(1972

8、:120): The speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms; these norms may be observed in overt types of evaluative behavior, and by the uniformity of abstract patterns of variation which are invariarit in

9、 respect to particular levels of usage. His definition shifts the emphasis away from an exclusive use of linguistic criteria to a search for the various characteristics which make individuals feel that they are members of the same community. Rather similar definitions, referring to shared norms and

10、abstract patterns of variation rather than to shared speech behavior, have been given by Michael Halliday(1972:35) and Montgomery (1995:175). L. Milroy's approach emphasizes social network. Milroy (1980 believes that Labov's definition is a very important innovation in research methodology,

11、and it has great theoretical potential. Milroy's research is based on social network, which is below speech community. The social network is the informal social relationship in an individual's communicative circle, such as relatives, neighbors and friends. Accounting for her own investigatio

12、n on London workers, she suggests that in a relatively closed society the social network is much more influential on the individual's speech than social class emphasized by Labov, and individual's sense of belonging is more direct in such a network. Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, a

13、lso gives a definition of speech community: "Speech community is a concept in sociolinguistics that describes a more or less discrete group of people who use language in a unique and mutually accepted way among themselves." Wikipedia also gives us some examples of the speech communities in

14、 hand. Speech communities can be members of a profession with a specialized jargon, distinct social groups like high school students or hip hop fans (e.g., ghetto lingo), or even tight-knit groups like families and friends. In addition, online and other mediated communities, such as many Internet fo

15、rums, often constitute speech communities. Members of speech communities will often develop slang or jargon to serve the group's special purposes and priorities.2.1.3 This paper's understanding of speech community From the above introduction, we can see that there has been considerable confu

16、sion and disagreement over exactly what a speech community is, but these definitions share some similarities and overlap in certain aspects. Based on the understanding of the above definitions, the author discerns the following three aspects necessary in constituting a speech community. Firstly, spe

17、ech community has a rather stable group of members connected by frequent interactions. The of members could be living in the same geographical location as the word community' used in its very literal sense. This of members can also be people bound by communications and interactions in the virtua

18、l world. Secondly, members of the speech community share the same understandings, values, and attitudes, and obey the rules of the group. Members of the speech community typically vary with respect to certain beliefs and other aspects of behavior. Each member would like to be identified as the membe

19、r of the group, to think, to behave and to speak as the other members do. Thirdly, members of the speech community have something in common linguistically-a language or language variety, interaction by means of speech, a given range of varieties and rules for using them. The linguistic similarities

20、among the members could set them off from other people. Speech community, a core concept in empirical linguistics, is at the intersection of many principal problems in sociolinguistic theory and methodology. The term speech community is widely used by sociolinguistics to refer to a community based o

21、n language, but linguistic community is also used with the same meaning. The study of speech communities has aroused the interest of numerous linguists for some time, at least since Leonard Bloomfield wrote a chapter on speech communities in his book Language (1933:ch.3). Being a key topic in sociol

22、inguistics; the concept originates from a German word-"Sprachgemeinschaft". Considering the focus of sociolinguistics is the study on a variety, and relating a linguistic system to its speaker is not trivial, sociolinguists have a tendency to associate varieties with communities in their r

23、esearch. In other words, they think the differences between communities correlate with differences in their language. With vigorous development of linguistics in the 20th century, especially with the establishment of sociolinguistics in the 1960s, scores of linguists discussed speech communities fro

24、m different perspectives.2.1 .1 History of the theory on speech community The adoption of the concept speech community as a focus of linguistic analysis emerged in the 1960s. This was due to the pioneering work by William Labov, whose studies of language variation in New York City and Martha's Vineyard laid the groundwork for sociolinguistics as a social science. His studies showed that not only were class and profession clearly related to language variation within a speech community