The Question of Speech Community

8/4/2019 The Question of Speech Community

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-question-of-speech-community 1/10

L.l&2

. .rrrThe R rnernhrariee (If IJ;u'I'Idise in K.uhmir

&~I~~lIC!nr 01 AI: ounling p",re$5ion in 1'lIkj (;InAbJuJ RdulUD Z~Ethai iLV lie Eamh •I> : An AruI~1 of f)"Cl ~ r '';ICWD r }~ \~ Ashr.U &.Bi!Jet "S As -h r.uParadl Inor Libc:r.lhz ti,ln :ami (;II • R Ie in l'.-"khbn',Dr. Am: n~1 A J;ljb;l.J1J+eema Iunio

rudy oflcHgh h. i \e" lie lo" hie, TI n IIrPC" n:>lilyV"riable-~Dr F~tllT\.l R o > r .Criti ,,1 ses smeur 0 Jam 5 avid B:uber', P ··hllbiogr.>ph ( 'c;hard ixon

K h .lli d . - {hmo"c1Role: to .id Aff.l'I"5: From Isobtit>lIi'lll LI) J II"", Inter\1;nuon' Ill-The c. e of

lI:tn m &. Ihe Middle 1 : . . .51Dr Klllmdku. ad1l'3 ParveenH w todo it; The inn r P..rtyAmbereena MJ.hmood Kaz,Dill.. b ~ rthe i\p~rnn I' f\\h· 10ve:me:nl in Comparatives &

Oils t BanoTh e:SliOn I 1)CI.'Lh nunurt;t - in

f\lh;uJvn.,d K~m lUu. Klunhwnl Political couomv: ,,-Wl"6: opeD r M Ahrmcl QJ ri &. Or M AbdulL ili Q.ldJ1Evolution of the Institution 0 .butlsllun in Paki.t;JnD r. 'lI~nt reesJ\ -rud of Coo\'c:~c:nr lie ' d.llUunl Validily ,{.:>b (acu

Arub Arr~ M"bck; Rub.n;> Fc:rozl D r AnIUID ~'ex Diff,,~ncc:~ lie Depress] 0Coping r ...ltegi~S~ l -b .KIer Ablu JW;.;..i<'eeping the aces aec n &Grc-CO!Developmem lwL,dp;alitie,s artoc..~pontk, I& ..tilllUl De\'l:IL' ......,nlD1 i\b~ 2M W~iJdI.Akhrer B chC'.3SUAI1odelsonJ b s..thf .. tiOIlDr. r;un.t F:uiill'the: Impact { Ial Cll .. nge 011Rural p'Ulln

D r . F ol te h Mu hi \II IJW rJ B u rf ol r; D r . R=1 S S ulunhe: Imp" r of Ele ni Medl. .. 011 ti,e. bte P;al!hbrtl Child~m

An.;al I of Poln:nt' Pereepucn in B.lldi;a To n, lUnclli1uh;unnuJ h.1laJiruauou 0 Pdrtury H ;11th re in ~"'- hi: 1 reliminary rudy in Low Income

Dr • 1us.lnt IqbalP.atirnLS e "ling fetlic..1 0 < ; ; . . 1~ rvice

Or • , reen 1\swn SIuh

ri ulture

ene in "To 'I'he Ligbt House" As, Blue Prim I r Forgln

1 i11gui t t i

III f

ialOu.ng

ocl I gic:aJ

up



J"I" " { ffllfrU, '2001

0. or SP. IJ 'OM. t 11

Muhammad K leern Raza Kh n

BST T

The (Jlt~SII()/' of spr« lr COlIlJIWnl/\ is ot' greru onponun. C III

o iiolin uistic studi s: but th» vanous definitions Ilf ,IIis

<ml,'cpt tha: JWI't' b ell offered S(1fur are not ,UJWJUC(OTV, Tlu

paper jill c}"IIRQI,.l a number £ I f 1 / ( : " d~fimtmll \ IIlJ:/udlll' IIIOS

111m d O JI 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 mUlwlillJ(III,l) pcec} , 'omnrlill/lk, as w rll (J Iii

(l1Il'S that nllo« mote thun Of' ImJllUilgc III (I COItIJlWIIIH, While

no attempt umad« el l defuun tht: notion O J sp ee l : (Jilin 1 1 1 11 1 ' .

,Ir basic dr.we:n [eutures ttuu (/I~' th« usual ingred: rnts 0 / crill'

~p~edl 10mOlIl"" em : dt I sed III the pope«

Ihd. be n ilt. n w l dged hv n a rly a ll ~OCI ImguJ\1 thnt 0 d ~Tlpllon a nd

.utillysi of f.lngu ge beh a iur I 1 1 1 1 ; gmup I~ , ompl te w ith lu t th e

d .cnpuon 01 t lwt group bc:<.JI se pe ple differ i~llIjjc:.lnllv frnrn e, h xh r In

J.)' of pea king . The se d rrf euc ca n be d escribed nd naly ed

ph n olog rca ll • IO Orph nln gl .1 I1 y. ,)'nlll'tIC I I) ' a n d ernanucally People a n a b

diffe r in . x:i I IlJ rm . '1 spe a king . vu rh th e numb r of p3'II~Ipantl' 10 :1 -peech

even t th e ,r r le r la lllln sh ip th Ir unus , w ei, spe a '1 0 r ights , It e n ature "I' th e

~ ch even t th e suua non m w h ich th e ev en t I la"lnl! pla 'e . md th e like , A

g r nu p I II ~ p c. lk cr ~ Ih ill h a r t he se rule a nd n orm IS o ft en r ef er re d 10 IlS . pe ch

communuy (Bookshel! 19910. Ith lugli tll nollon 01 peevh mrnunuy IS

cen t! I II th e, octolin gurs ue r e th no gra ph ic \tuu. of lurgU i II\; grnu] II II > lull

0 1 c nfusion a nd ltercauon I'll 111m 0 1 th l, se cuon is to e r rnn lilt of th e

wcll-kr wn d Iirunun of th e lam In th e luer lure an d (0 presem a n operanonal

dctlnHH n lor th e present tudy

G NIT)'

tmJllun cm ph ;u ;l~ th e r ule th ai .1 11th e people w ho sh are u l<lnguagc I rm

the p eh cornrnurut of Ihal l a nguage L> II'. 1970 ~ C J ) de imnon IS rhe~Impl t who .I y

I( / , 1 Spe<ch CQ""r t I11I lJy al! tnr people \ ·1/0IISI!' u given lew J:11t l . t :

(or duilc I ,

IIcunn t be a ccepted a s n : ppropria te de fin ition on th re g round . F irs t. pw er~

u th same la nguag e mily n I he U te m embe rs (It' th e sa me Spl.: ch co mm un u

(Hudson 1996), For e ample, speakr!> If Lrdu 11 1 Kar, hi and in Lucknov (Indra)

us c th e surne l a nguage but the a re n t th e m mb nf th e 'arne 'PC h

cornmunuy , not on l ' In te rm s of physica l b und rie l. but IS () In t erm. (If diffe rentedu 1 1 1 1 n : 1 1 . cuhur I IlIJd sucia l s e r u n g s econd , mem be rs 01 in C peech

com rnunuv rna 'pca m re th a n De l a nguage . r r I 'lance, In Be lg ium .

Si l l ':JP rc a nd P:1 raguD , tu mennon n l e . peop le h a re ,II l e a s t t\ 0



la ngua g e s And th e la s r i. t ha t if t hi s d ef im u on IS a ccepte d , peeke r- of ' on e

la ngua ge w h Iopeul. IW I di f feren t dia lec t . w uld be considered m em be r .. of tw n

separate peech communuies.

"el l CI 5: ) a lso be liev e s In th e one - I: ngung -( ne - pe h-communi ty

Ii rm ula w ith a d iffe re nce , In h I. oplm on

[b] Eaci: lellllllllllte defines a .rp eel, ('Qlfllllllf"/_l fht' whole jet of

p ('o p/ • 'IJ () ca mmum cn tv . IIitl: 'nell o ther , ,,11 1" d irect! or

indire fl)" I'ta the commoll Inll~rlllt:e

Thi definit i 0 require s com rnunu, tinn Din 109 members ru qUl1ht, mg

condruon II suggesl InUI ir tw o rr UP\ ( f J l ople h a re one l.tn ua 'C: hUI there i,

no comm um ca uon be tw een th .rn , be n t hey do 001 belong II th e same .ornmunuy

cc lrd mg to Ih l~ de fin iunn, rdu pee ke rs In Kar;lI:hi und I uckno belnng [

lWII separate ll. h mrnumties be us e the do n 11 h.IV a 'II oW t. even It he,

. h a r e ,I rn g le I ngua g bsen I! !1 11 comn I drsqu h fie s th em fr m th emembe r sh ip 0 the same commumty, , irrul r ly , : pe ters of other IJol>ua"e. even

II rh Y • rc In cnrua t Y o uh ea ch other re considered member of discrete speech

Immunities.

Kachru and Ne t on 1996: 2) define speech ommunuy Inthese war .

1(.'/ ... th « Ix )tly vJ speaker. ,1m film' tr f(lngllug<' as \'1."11(u in

interrelated social rules " / 1 1 . • il"o tnndnrds (J id It.\ 1I0mn.

l 'h is d efu uu on a dd s un Important drmens ion In th e tK)UOO of spee rh community:

apphcaiu n If 1.:1, ]1r ul es , s ta n da rd s and n rrmv, Thi s an d iuon disquahnes th e

ueut nt J rn . , 1 non n uve pe a le rs o f la ngua g ill;membe r (h .a l . pee h

comm un ity beca use th ey sh are I n l, th e cod e 1100 not th ocra l ru le s thal JC !

usu..lly a pp lie d by th e na tiv e pe a e rs Pra g rn a uc ru le s or interaction a re , 1M )

III~used y J\llJe -T r ike 1 996; Vi ) 'Inn n a n ..e spe a ke r n l B IlIlIgUUg oucn

lis e h e norm s a nd . lJndilrds 0th ir r w n n a uv e l an ll ll .l ge ... rl r e • mple rn a ] nl ~

of J> akJ.t rus lea rn Eng lish th t IS divorc d trorn II~ ulture , I. uft n ta ugh t

w uh ut th e E ngh h socia l c n text, In fQ t, P ak is ta m te xtb oo ks lit En Ii. h .

pub l, h d by offrcial loca l te tbook bo rds , n rs truci rh e rr w nte rs I pr e sen t

Fngli h 10 Pukixtam '1 :1 1come t. I'h e r es ul t I:> Ih ;lt rru "), rf not, II. Pa kt tam

peakcrs of english U:\C it Wi t h ou t t .n g ll ~ b social rrnv .tn d ~ I. n a rds w hrch a re

normally sh r e o hy n, tiv spea kers of En!!lish.

ASP '. II

Thu g up rn ludes those definiti rr rh.1I allow th e use ut m re than one lanEu gc

by th e m embe r. or . pe ech commumry T he fo llo w in g s ta te me nt by B I rnfield'

(J 93 _ :421 d n I spec if ic lIy require mooohngua h sm " delrmng fea ture 0 Q

peech tmmunny

93



r

[tl] A peed. communuy is a grdllp 1)[ peopie who tnterart hv

m ea ns o j sp oec h.

Hut II m clud es [n te ra II n and the usc peech I lC Le 5S ClC )' c md ill n 1 0 fo r

qualif 'In' .1 group spe h eommunuy This w 'I the deaf nd dumb arc

e eluded rom 0 1 1 speech communures becau 'e they d not mtera t by mean of

spec h aville fmlke lI9%' 57), on 'he: other hand. specifi ally 3S$efL! the

po s ibihty of peech communi t ies In which member, n itre more Ih ' lJ1 nnelanguage-

[e] lndn-tduals mny 1 1 ( ~ / O I I R 10 several speech commumues (III/I;ell

ma), Ill.' d isc rete o r overlapping], J /~ t (lr they 1 1 1 f T ) ' participca

ill a \ ur iel,' o f JO nnl w ltlllJ :,Y .. , To ,mduJTllJtd th is

rile/wilt lion, mit' 1IIU51 recognis« that cacl: member oj a

ommunirv liar a rep 110;rl!' of so tal identiues ant! thar eacl:

idemtt» ;1 1 a 8 1 'ell context ts asvoctated wll" a number oj

npprtJl)f iau 1-erbal and non-verbal forms vj expresston.

AI(lttJIl~1r lUI I I Id 'WdUII I ' , ! ' repetunre of social identities may be

Wit/III! the bound. of' a .)ill~/t! omplex speecl: ommunity, jo r

'u'/llgllal.br ultaml uulivtduals m«'mber.rJr;p in IIl1fdalcd

s pe ec h c ommunt ne s ur . ommon ,

II refers In bi l ingual indrvidua l w ho may be members of tw o di. nnct speech

c rmmunir ies 10 which members nolonly .hare more than one language but also

the v rbal as we l l !> non-verbal fi rm s of commumcauon. lndividu Is In uch

s itua tions e membe rs "I many spec h curnmum ue . W llh :sm , (1992) , nn th

other J nd, pUI ernphmi on geograplucal 0 phys ica l unda rie or, spe h

communny plus th difference be tween members of a communu nd

parncipants Her pomt of VICW I! > 111 :1 1I IS possible to ha ve p rucipants who are

non-merebeo, of In:SJ 'pe«h c rnmumty 0 non-n uve :peeker 01.1 language arc

p"rtlclpanl!. Wilholll be ing rne rnb rs of a e mmunuy S~IJ,.er. (If n la ng ua ge ,

whether narive or non-move, haring the same hngui: uc code C n Pilr1ICIPDIC In1I

speech event W I thOUI bcing mernbers If the same speech communuy. An En~lish.

1 .. 00 \ 1 0 9 igenan ca n C rumurucute w ith n Enghsh-knowmg Mala) ' . Ian They

Me n 1 members ,1 the nghsh peech community but 'hoy can p.micipate

IInll rly , a 'cw Zea la nde r a nd n Amert a n a re parncipant» lind n I members f

a s pe ech c om rn ur uty

This n lion ts also ernphu ...i d by Savtllc-Troike (19~9 17) In these words:

"It 1.1, 1 eful 10dlSlrn~lIIs" ben 'UtI pam IpcUlIIg ill a speech

communi!}' WId lnung 0 member of it; sp(!l1t..illg lire sanu:

1011 'Ullgf: IS ,suffi tent tvet not necessary] ja r J,Om dcgr c of

participation, bu: memb rship rannot lu hased nil knowledgeand I'kill alone."

ndhar (1996: 9) 0 1 1 '( l la y r suess on he knowledge an d skill of u."lng the sh re d

norrru ruthe r rh n linguisuc code :

4



If) Gcuerallv, indll'Ir/llnl ar versed ill tilt' norms and pnttem: of

uueraction in 1 1 1 I •.'i, societies. A conglomrrauon 0 individual.

who share Illest' same lIomn about ommuni anoJl is rI!J~rrt:tJ/C J Cll U spe« I, com m un ity. , \ sp e c J r e0 l1 l11 tuJ I I1YLS tJ(finrd (1$ a

ommumty shanng' u ImowtJ!dg of th« rules fo r fir rondu t

and imerp) tuuon of ,'padl. 'itt, h l/raring consists of

knowlcdg« ( )J (II least one [arm of speech and kuowlcdg« UI.H)

OJII.IIUt'

ndhar believes t h . I U th e mem rs If d speech cornmunny should be fa milin r w Ith

the shared rules and n mns of thai communuy through e perience TIm. definition

doe s nu t give ny n ew information a b u t th e n a tur of II peech com rnunu ' ex iept

Ih:&! the members sh uld have knowledge ot rules an order to u e them .1 1 the

production a well II reception 0 speech an th I C mmunuy, However, II nISI

allows ihe useo f m re t han ne language

F RE OC 1'1'10 0 M' IBER ADlThi group Include)' 'orne of those defuuuons an w hl h speech c immuruuc arc

defined t h r ough thei r r I uonsh ips Wi th nther ornmunn ie s . The m mbcrs 01

;pcc c h ommunny , rega rd le ~ of numh e r uf lin gu i tic cod e s th use , m us t be

i nrificd asdifterent from members of other cornmumues. I'he first definuion put

fo rwa rd 10 th l, g mup IS by Gumperz C1962)

f s I W, II ill defill!! JIm tulst] com mu ntt J OJ' (/ s oc ia l g ro up I -hicl:

I I l tJ ,\ ' be either numolmgua! 01 I Iw / / il il lg tw l . Ireid /(II:('llrl'r bv

Ir qu n of octal interuction patterns and se! off from l/il!

surrounding area by weak" ~'.\ITt III lines of communication

speech C l I n m u n i l _ ace rding I thi definul 1 1 , I~ different from • n ther

bee use of tho f requency of Intern 1.0n pauerns employed for commurucauon b

th e m em be rs an U)C communi ty In n eth er d efim uo n. Gumperz (19 8: 219)

defines the same aunon an these: words

fi r I III lIfuzlY_fin,'l lineulstic pit 110m nil wuhln a soaall, dejuU'd

universe, tilt: stud» is of tanguagt' Uja~t: eLI 11 reflects more

general belrflviollf norms This ulllllPrs/! i~ the' speech

("0""",11111\ (V)' human a 'gregnU characterised by regular

and f requent tnteractton bv m litH of n shared bodv uJ verbal

Jig/IS WId .1 I 0 f rom sinula, aggr ega! S b. significant

dl[JcrellC'es IIIlanguag« Itsa~f!.

Here th e ernphasi I~ on regul r nnd f requent rn rerncuon 1 1 cken 1 95 ' a n [bl

a bov e a lso h old s Ih i!> a ~ n e f th e dcfinmg fe a uue s of Ii speech comrnunuy

another place, Gurnperz (1982: 24) defines .peech cornmunny lIS

[i] a S ." .I II .' 1 IIof organised diversity held 10 tether '" ammon

110m r and aspirations. femhers of mclL 0 COIIIIIIUIIU

f>prcalN varv with respect to renntn beliefs Wid other aspects

95



OJ behaviours Sll~" l'UrraJIOII, I I 'Mel! SCt!IIU irregular ,,11£'11

observed (It till' 1f'1 el nf fhe individual, nonetheless shows

systematu: regularuiif

at th« statistical ICI'e( of social facts.

This 1! true for com plex m uln lm gua l speech cornm um ues In w h i ch d iv er si fie d

groups nl people arc held together by shared norms. goals a nd a rm s Indl\'lduAls

may appear diffe rent but theu social bc!hil\I( IUI ..lm w ~ re gu la r plllLr:rrh Not

different from Saville-Troike (l9R9. 17) ,1I1dSridhar (19<>6, 49) above , Labov

( l 971 . 1 0 ) shn re more or le s s th e same opmion a nd he pu ts emphasis not on th e

sharmg ot hnguis t ic code bu t 011parucipaung In sha r ed norms

01 nl' l{l.·~dl cotnmumtv iI' 11mdifin~d bv al lY marked

tl,,,rUIIICIII in tlu: lise 0/ Jl/llgIIU~t: elements, so much U.$ b

particrpatian 1/1 (1 l't!I 0 / shared norms; these norms mav be

observed III overt types of evaluauve / }e /z ( I I ' IO I I f , alia b) the

1 1 1 1 ; / 0 / ' 1 1 1 1 ' : 1 1 of abstract patterns oj' l'arrallf1ll wlurh are

IIIwuiJIIIt in respect to part ie ular 1I' I' (: if of usag».

Labov's stress IS on the shared uuuudcs and values regnrchng I nguuge Iorms nn d

u.s e A cepung this, ipeukers nf different regional lind soc ia l vancucs of Urdu

w uuld be .cnsldered members f different sp ech commumnes For example.

sp ea ke r of D ee ca ni ( reg lo na ] vanety ot Deccan , lndiu) InJ Bihun (regional vanet

of Bihar. lndia) varieties of Urdu or :;pe;tJ;cro.o f lower .md higher vnrieties would

be cons id ered m em bers of d iffe ren t speech cornmuruues b ec au s e they fe e l to be

different, SImilarly. the people .....o belong 10 separate .peech commuruues

be lieve th at th ey a re m ernb f)I r th e s .rm c corn mun uy . T he y lire n ot, F or e xa mple ,

the speakers of Cantonese Ch ine se a nd H akka Chinese c an n ot c ommuni ca t e with

each other orally but since both the communities ~peak "Chinese", they think Ih a l

the} a re m em be rs of rh e sa me speech com munuy .

H ud son (1 996:27) be lie ve s thlll p eo ple s ho uld be different from each oth e r 10

more than one wav, Ile says:

{kl To qrm lifi. (I S a c ommun it y. II set 0 .1peop le p resum ablv n eed s

to he dUllIIgwslted from th» rest 0/ the world bv more than

(lnr prap« rt)' find SUIIIl: 0/ {1,t'JI! pr oper ties hav« '0 be

impouant from III. ., POUlt of 1 irUi of tli« members' social l ives.

These propcrn cs ca n be different linguisu code s th a t th e member: share w i t h

e ach oth er and like In I J J . the), C.IO be comm on g oa l" . com mon .rmbiuons nnd

cornm n <;u .;illl beh a v iour, B ohng er 1 1 975: 3 33 ) e la bora te» th is pom t m th e se

wo r d s :

/11 There U /I{} limi: to thr lHyJ III W}"cI, humm: bt:lngs leagu«

themselves together /01 sdJ·idtlllrjicarioll. secuntv, gain.

amusement worship • .(II UlI) of th« nther purposes fhllt areheld 1/1 rommon; ronsequentl» there IS no limu to lite tuunbe»

96



and Iurict of lpecl: communities that ar. In be foulld 1/1

soeictv.

nrc group that nne chooses If> Id"ntrfi ' wttlt do /JO( otwavs

ra Will onstant, A I one POliti, III,' determnung [actor 1 1 / ; ht b

languaee, (1/ (IIIO(h ir pOIlU reltgto«, and at \'1:1anotl: r point

castr or etluucuv. nus p rspectivc 0 Illfting. (JI't'riuppiJlR,

mien ctin '. Wid c()mpJem~n/m8 ldentiue is particularlv suuedto tll(, charartertsauon. (if lIIa/flllII, ual speccli communities. In

tlu: -use of monolingutils. , IIC / lO/I IlS IIIn ' '·~/nMlJ.h \Ihell 10

peal.. or tnt rrupt a sp aker # W I \ ' (0 comphment or thank:

soml'ont', how m reques! ~o",ell"n8 pnlucl , Wid SO nn I" (II,

('rut: oj mulillingual! (IU! ItCJr/11J IVIII mclud. .. all of til above.

plus constdcrauons surl: as wlucl: langllaN' to usc (111 lillOI

oc n$IOIIami wi,h II1 1 0m , ..

The Lone PlO's h comrnurury' i!'.I.'1 nfu .ing becsuse e f the reason that gloup!>

f people can be different from each other on s many dIffe rent grounds Defining

speech communit IS difficul! for vurious reasons aville-Troike (I989 18)

g ive s ve ry r d de fin iu n thl1t melude :. u w hr Ie ra nge of spe -11communit le

In III , mall group In n soctety t nued all ns. In h t VII w rds

[ml ] It ts till vroup WI/hi ll (I WC;Cf'.' ....ric!, has onythn: ' . U " T I I / 1 mil

ill common (illdtldjn.~ rt!(lglOn. thnt uy race, age, d. cifm:!is,

se: ual ortcntatton, tl' occupatton but nat 'J!' olour or

It i~"I)2 II ts () pll sical!» bounded unit of pcopll! havin 'I.full r(zn~c oj

role-opportunities ((I polutcaltv organised tribe or nnuon, bUI

not a~lngle-seA. ftn le-age, or slJIlile-cla ~ unu IIIu a

monast 'Y. homefar lite aged, or ghetto}.

J II is " collertio« of ,\IIullnr/)' siuuued entities ttuu huve

:WIII thing III common (.1'[1.It U ,III! ~ t! tern World, df 'w:lopII IK

ountries. EllflJPCOIl Common M(lrJ.I'I, or rllt ' United 'aunns}

Thi definiti II IS so r ad t hu l It roughly subsumes ne lr l a ll the lerncm, f th e

defiruu discu: sed bove A cording I !hil> deflmtion, - t OI)l: end. any group

that h an thing ignifi (;ant In comm n lha l differentiates itWIth other group. is 11

speech commuruty : a nd a t th e oth e r end gr u . o r n tir ounme sueh s or· ,ATO. Islamic Conf ren e, AM. mmon WC· lhh . nd even th United

7



atlllll, w ith ound H IS member counm c . J \ J J d In th e m idd le g rounJ th e re IS

who l e rung r g e og ra ph ic al ly , p ol it ic al ly .J nd .. :leI' lIy bounded enn t: uch a s . d

\ i ll H e, lin org a nisa n n •. 1 city, tribe. f rn ily , d a n . a n ... Ia nd . prnvin c and il

w hole n a uon definuron of such bre .ld th I. ta r from be ing t suitable on e flr

YS I rnauc rud .

8 H M\1 Il'YDrr WIng on some of the definitionx dl cu sed above, und 'on id nne the

omplc: lly ot the nonons I la ngu; g .: :tnd commun ity . I w ould like to pr )P()~

thai th follow ing cl menu iU'C e enn I [or a gruup r pc pi e 10 quahfy Il Q

.pceeh c.:ummun1L_•

Recognlti D of m r than one I n 'uug.:Lin UiSIII: h orm g cn ci ty IS IIUI.1O .enua l h ra terisric of II spe e h corn mum ty,

J l.'ClInPlsite DUl. It may i nc lu de d il te r en t 1,lOg1)gc r arieues of , s ingle

lunguag Ih a t If C used by th e m em bers 01 IhJI commun it ' a nd in liv id ua l m em be r . ..

01.1) be monoHn ual nr bi l inaual .

Gl'tIgr ph I b und r)

A . pee .h communn 01.1)' h e C n tamed w ith in m e physical bounda ry , which I

n t ne 'I!~nl y Ii w a l l Or fence but th e m emo rs , and non-member h uld be

iw a re ot the l im i t . .

nd norms

t nd fr -quen ofi.nlcnu:li n

f rbe • lm muruty m u~ t be in C n~ ct w ith ea ch I th e r , Th ey I sc th e

m em bersh ip if th e coni '1 I los ~ r Jia ng period . Frequei y uf mrera uo n £1 es

n kind 01 unity ILl the WCI I g r up. tembers wy H\ II irn ila r soci I m ilie u for a

long tulle. I' membersh ip to s pe e ch c ommu nity IS n t ClJUiH: I for II brief

period

n-permaaent If1 mbe hip

Th i s I related" the frequency of uuera .uon , O ne i" I member of It . pel' h

ornmunuy I ng as the have [requcm inte a non WIth o the r member Wh e n

th e los e th e nta ct :lnU b eg in to move Ini1 fli ll hc r c omm ur ut • they gradually lose

th e membersh ip , a nd tra n : II ri ly, J qurre ih e m em be rsh ip f a noth r spe ech

commurury , I th e ion t ICC is not IOSL Ihen th e becom e members of 1W< ' speech

c mmuruue . f1 r example n rdu-spca king r mily le ave s Pa ki [lin for U

w h ere th o)' 011. up wuh th e member )1 .muthe r pee ch ommuruty . In thebe gin "," ' th ey a re pa rticipa nts Inthat I: Immunity but g ra dua lly a s th e rr e xpo ure

to the Ame ric n socie ty rncre a se s , th cquire th e mcmb [ hlp n r Amenc, n

98



·ngll. h ~~ech community through e penence, m..stenng the !lOCI;'] rule. and

norm . e tc, If th ey lu\c II con ta cts w ith h e ir uri giua I , pe ech communuy , th ey

ca se to be m embe r (If It.

If· w ren 10

111sIS considered one of th e most Important c lements 10 r h e d e f in i uon 01 a speech

communuy The members ol \I speech communrty re co gn is e th em se lv es .1

membe r ()TS epa ra le speech communu .

The ch a r cte ri tics me rui ned a bove a re fa r from be ing d iscre te They re

inte rdependent nd 0" r la ppmg but a ll of th e se e lemen ts re e ssen tiul to d /je rll e a

peech commumty N. IIh ~ air dy been meruioned 00"'. shanng nne r m re

c lemcn I makc~ pcl pi c qualify f, r m em be r- hi p 01 ..peech ommunuy . P : r

ell mple all the 'Itlll!n!> (II Pakistan broadly 'pc;lk.ing. bdnn· tn one speech

e rnmumty bcC3USC they .hare On.! element. name ly . the cmzen ..h lp of P kistan

ince r sple ca n h ave ove rla pping membe rslups. a ll th e Pa kis ta n i a rc membe rs

f van u speech communuie s ba sed on rchg i u. cwi·ln. e thnic , hnguistic,

reg l m il, and other !!fOund' .

T h e Um ve rs ity el f Karu hi In a present anoth e r e ample ::tll pe , pie w h belong 10

th e umvcrsny . re members of a smgfe spe ech com mum ty , w h ich 1 I 1 1 1 , w . th e. w e 0 1

n -re th a n one la nguage They share rn re or I~ \ th a r ne I I environment n

the campus that has dennu I!oogl'llpnU;ll1 boundunes, The recognise themselves

a s members of d iffe ren t communuy s long a s they a r e m m e premises and a s

long (IS th ey hove frequen t Inl ra cuon w ith oth er m mbe rs t r th e . a rne

cummunuy . l-or e ample. iI pe rson stud ied or four yea rs al th e uruvcnil) a... u

membe r uf th l!; ummumry , le ft il a fte r g ra du iion , nd J rned a ba nk. Tw o or

t h re e ! y e ar 1011 , w hen Ihi~ pe rson v i. ts th e umvcrsuy lo r 11)' rcaMln.cJhe feels

m!ll slhe IS no longer me membe r of thl~ peech community 'ow s lh e II IOSI

this membe r sh ip . A speech commumty. ther fore, hal; more than one common

cle me nt, . th e ba li" ! te auire , It is composed a c mple : n twUJ k

REVERE 'E..')

B l oomf ie ld . L eo na rd Y o ' Yor H It, Rinehart &!) '1

Wlnst n.

B linge r wigbt 1975 Aspects of Language. (2Med) New

H arcourt B ra ce Jova nov i h .

rk:

Gump rz , J. 1 962 1 ypes of l inguis t ic community I I I Gumpe r z J.1971. LallRIUlRI1 III Social Groups S ta nlo rd - , ta nfo u!

University Pn ..

Gumpcrz. J. 196 111e peech Commumty . In GIghllh, P. P (ed),

1972, 1.aIl,f{ltnBt: WId SOL 'w l Cont t, pp 219-2 I.

H armondsw orth : Penguin B oks,

99



Gumperz, J. 19 2 : Discours ·'m/~.gies. Cambridge: Camhrid teU niv ers ity P re '.

H ocke tt C r . 19-8' COllrSC' in Modem UJlgm.mcs New Y rk:

M rrnllan

Hud on. R.A. 1996 SOl t ol in g u is II I. (2nd ed),

Cambridge Uruversi! Pres..mbridge:

Hym es. D e ll 1 972 Mode l. 01 th e m icra lion f la ngua ge a nd soci a l

life In Gumperz nd Hymes (eds) Directions ill

Sociohngursncs: Till: t.,nllograpJay of omuuuucanon,

pp ~ 5-71 .Ncw York 1 1 01 1 .Rh in eh a rt W mston ,

K uch ru, B mJ I'Id . 'e lson , Ce cil 1996. Wor ld Eng" h , In M~Kay IOU

Hornberger (ed), 1996, Sactoltnguistics and Languag

TeacJ ,U I . pp 71 102.. Cambridge: C mbridgeUruverstt Press,

L btlv , William. 197- : S( ) -ioimguisttc Pat terns Oxford: Blackwell.

Lyons. John (cdI. 1970 New ttorizons III Linguistics, I l a rmondswor th :

Penguin a o b

/ \ . 1 i ' ro {o fi B o "h lt If Dict ionary 01 1 C om pa ct D f._ \·.1998. 11cro It Corporauon

aville-Troike, Iuriel , 1989 . 'nit' Eflrrwglt1ph • oj COIIIlIIlJllicaJl(1n 12nd cd),

o ford: Sa u BI kwclJ

';IVtUC-roike,Munel 1996:TheEthnography of Communi lion. In M Kay

an d llor nberger eds), 1996. Sociolin rt l utc andt.nngllugt' Teacnin». I p. 351 382, arnbndgc:

Cam br idg e Um ve rsuy Pre II

ridha r, K mal. Ie 96 . Societal mululmgua lh m In M Kay and

Hornbe rge r (ed). 1 9' 6. So iolingtnstics llIIIILan IIllg

Tell hlllg. pp. 47-70. Cambridge: Cambridgeni crsity Pre s.

Willi.l1m.Ol n. 1 < > 9 2 'ono(mglllSticl' A SociologicalCritique. London Routledge

100

Documents

The Question of Speech Community