LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

A Comparison of William Labovs and Dell Hymes Notions of Context

As founding fathers of the sociolinguistic field of study, both William Labov and Dell Hymes have argued extensively against the Chomskyan approach to linguistics in their work. Both have grounded their work in parole, actual language in use, which Chomsky held to be unsystematic and irrelevant for scientific enquiry. Sociolinguists like Labov and Hymes do not agree that systematicity can only be found in langue, the abstract grammar. Instead, they see systematic rules and norms in everyday interactions, which are influenced by social factors, on all levels of language, from phonetics and phonology to syntax and discourse (Wodak, Johnstone & Kerswill, 2011, p. 2). The new approach emerging from their early work in the 1960s took the view that language cannot be adequately understood without taking many layers of social context into account (Ibid, p.1), be they the situational context of utterances, the personal background of participants in interactions, or the speech community. For both Labov and Hymes, the study of language must be grounded within social context, and any theory or approach that forces a separation between language and social context is regarded as highly deficient, and even impossible. This essay attempts to compare Labovs and Hymes respective notions of context and comment on their similarities and differences, and the implications for linguistic theory and methodology they entail. Areas of comparison include what constitutes context, its relationship with language and the scope of linguistic enquiry, its influence on behavior, and its implication on methodology. One of the most basic and fundamental assumptions in sociolinguistics, including the Labovian variationist tradition and Hymes ethnomethodological approach, is that human beings use language in contexts of situation in various ways, as opposed to the Chomskyan position that language can be studied as an idealized
1

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

and entirely psychological entity, completely abstracted from actual use. Sociolinguistics describes and explains the general as well as specific contexts in which language is situated, and their relationship with instances of linguistic phenomena. In fact, Labov finds the term sociolinguistics misleading and redundant, because he does not consider linguistics to be possible at all without studying the social context in which language occurs (Figueroa, 1994). The study of language as a social phenomenon is linguistic proper (Ibid, p 69). Likewise, Hymes holds that language is inseparable from the general sociocultural organization. The scope of linguistics should be language broadly defined within the parameters of communication rather than language narrowly defined as grammar (Ibid, p. 33). In attempting to describe and explain linguistic phenomena, therefore, the link between language and sociocultural factors must be examined. Beyond this general principal of inclusion of the social into linguistics, however, Labov and Hymes differ regarding what context is and the various ways in which it influences language and behavior. Context for Labov means broad and presupposed categories, but for Hymes context is open-ended, multi-dimensional, and emergent. For Labov, context determines behavior, while for Hymes, context is merely a constraint. Labov correlates language and context, whereas Hymes sees the two as inseparable. Labovs quantitative approach makes use of context as a source for data, while Hymes qualitative approach finds meaning and function in context. While sociolinguists often refer to context in their work, they do not always agree as to what exactly context is, what it encompasses and excludes. Labov and Hymes differ in their conceptions of what constitutes context. In Labovs view, the speech community forms the social context (Ibid, p. 69), which should not be confused with cultural, socio-cognitive, interactive or phenomenological notions of social context (Ibid, p. 71). As Labov is a realist, these aspects of context are
2

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

regarded as irrealistic, and therefore irrelevant to his analysis of language, as they suggest that reality is constructed by individual interaction and cognition. Labov holds that social context is made up of social facts which act upon the individual but which are not created by the individual (Ibid, p. 73). As the individual psyche is not a social fact, it is not a part of social context. On the other hand, Hymes understanding of context is a much broader one encompassing anything which could influence the production or interpretation of an utterance (Ibid, p. 60). His famous SPEAKING model highlights the basic components of context, which include the material, the situational, and even the psychological, which Labov excludes. The scene of a speech event is defined as the abstract psychological setting, and the private goals of participants are considered as one of the components as well. The private goals of the individual participants play a part in framing the expectations of an interaction, as well as how it is conducted and evaluated (Ibid). Thus, for Hymes, individual motivation is also part of context. Labov has a far stricter and more rigid view on context, and Hymes conception of it is more open-ended and multi-dimensional. In Labovs conception, context is made up of social facts, and in his work, context is often presupposed. In his study of the patterned use of the voiceless interdental fricative, contextual situations were located in advance (Labov, 1972b, p. 113) at different levels of formality, ranging from word list to reading style to careful and casual speech. Context is presupposed and pre-assigned, divided up into five distinct categories. Labov also employs broad demographic or geographic stratifications in his classifications of speech communities, which in his view forms the social context. For example, in his study of the post-vocalic /r/ as a sociolinguistic marker, he highlights socioeconomic class, gender, and age as the relevant social contexts (Labov, 1972a). His findings are framed in categorical ways like in every context, members of the
3

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

speech community are differentiated by their use of X and women use fewer X forms then men (Ibid). Thus, Labov draws broad, crude divisions between casual and careful speech, upper, middle and lower classes, and women and men, and makes sweeping generalizations across sub-groups that make up the context. In another study, he drew the conclusion that Negro speakers literally cannot say wasps, lists, or desks . . . [the forms they produce] are quite unknown in the surrounding white community (Labov, 2009, p. 7). Nothing is said of the heterogeneity that may exist within each group or variations between individuals. On the other hand, the inherent open-endedness of Hymes model means context cannot be presupposed. In Hymes view, context emerges out of a particular interaction. Instead of drawing broad categories, Hymes SPEAKING model merely provides a general framework, with the details to be filled in case by case, with the individual aspect taken into account: the participants and their roles and relationships, the personal goals of individuals, the instrumentalities and the particular constraints or freedoms they present (Figueroa, 1994). In this way, diversity and particularity can be systematically studied by making explicit the reference of a description to a single use in a single context, and by testing discrepancies and variations against differences of use and context (Hymes, 2009, p. 64). Otherwise, the analysis is simply reduced to explication of a corpus or the subjectivity of the linguists own intuitions of underlying structure (Ibid). Whereas Labov has a macro conception of context in the larger framework of the speech community and the various social stratifications across it, Hymes is interested in the micro context, looking at the immediate and local context in which interaction occurs. As Hymes model does not regard context as presupposed but with the various components emerging in the flux of the present, it is in a better position to describe and explain the complexity of human communication and to avoid drawing
4

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

oversimplified and overgeneralized conclusions. The focus on local context and the neutrality of an open-ended model entail the ability to apply sociolinguistic research to real-world problems of disadvantage and inequity, by making visible underprivileged communities and their ways of speaking, in their original context and using their norms (Johnstone & Marcellino, 2011, p. 65), therefore dealing better justice to the local and diverse dimensions of language use. Labov constructs social context as broad, presupposed categories of social stratification, and explains the variation of language use patterns based on these categories. For Labov, these fixed social facts, which constitute context, are coercive and determine individual behavior (Figueroa, 1994, p. 77). The context of the speech community is where language belongs, and exercises general, binding and usually unconscious constraint upon the individual, who inherits such constraint simply by virtue of being a member of the community, the context (Ibid). This is a deterministic view of the binding powers of context upon individual behavior, and necessarily follows from Labovs construction of context as broad and static social categories, ignoring the individual complexities of each interaction. For Hymes, however, behavior is conditioned by context, but not determined by it (Ibid, p. 37). The inherent open-endedness and emergent nature of Hymes framework allows for real fluidity and flexibility that exists in human interaction. Participants may take on multiple roles and identities, or have contrasting goals; keys can change within one interaction, from sarcastic to serious to light-hearted. Because context exercises constraint, yet remains open-ended at the same time, it can accommodate the irrational aspects of human behavior, involving the ability to behave in novel, unwarranted, improvisional, unpredictable, fantastic ways (Figueroa, 2009, p. 188). Such an approach is more realistic and balanced than Labovs essentialist view, in which individual behavior is determined by the context of the community and the
5

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

volition and spontaneous creativity of human language use is ignored. Aside from the influence of context on behavior, Labov and Hymes also differ as to the relationship between social context and linguistic phenomena. For Labov, language and social context are two separate entities, and sociolinguistic analysis correlates the independent linguistic variable with some sort of likewise independent social variable (Figueroa, 1994). For example, in Labovs study of New York English, the use or non-use of the post-vocalic /r/ is correlated with two contextual factors, namely the formality of the situation and social class (Labov, 1972a). Context takes a much more prominent role in Hymes theory, as an integral part of language, instead of just the social factors that correlate with language use. Hymes holds that context and language use cannot be separated. Context is where meaning is created, and at the same time the language people use in their interactions shape the context. For Hymes, language depends crucially upon the context of interaction: the participants work in situ to shape the resulting discourse (Shaul & Furbee, 1998, p. 137). In the ethnomethodological approach, context can be linguistically produced, as well as supplied by culture, and emerges in the course of interaction. Socio-cultural context may not only correlate with language, but reach over and overwhelm the linguistic meaning. This can be illustrated by the ethnomethodologist study in which the investigator stood on a street in Scotland and told passersby about a kangaroo crossing the street in an aboriginal Australian language. Although people did not understand the linguistic content of what was said to them, they nonetheless interpreted it as normal requests for time, change, or directions (Ibid). In his critique on the omission of social dimensions of language use, Hymes cites a study of an East African people where someone of lower status stutters, makes grammatical mistakes, and uses limited vocabulary in the presence of the tribal leaders. The investigator found that in this culture, it is inappropriate to display superior verbal ability in the
6

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

presence of elders, and incompetence is a tool to show respect. Hymes uses this example to highlight the necessity of a social approach (Hymes, 2009, p. 64), but it can also shed light on the inadequacy of Labovs construction of the dichotomy between language and context. It would hardly explain anything if we simply correlate the substandard or ungrammatical language to a particular context, in this case, in the presence of someone from a higher class. However, if the interrelatedness and mutual influence of language and context are taken into account, it would become easier to see how this kind of language use arises out of context, and how socio-cultural meaning is simultaneously derived from this linguistic phenomenon. As a result of this difference, the role that social context plays in Labovs research and analysis is more restricted. Labovs concern with social context is subordinated to the empirical basis of linguistic explanation, and his focus is not to build a theory about the role social context plays in language (Figueroa, 1994, p. 90). Social context, for Labov, is simply the place where data is collected (Ibid), and what should be correlated to linguistic facts. The optimal data should be language use in context, and not sentences constructed by the linguist himself or herself. Realistic language in context for Labov means the most natural and least conscious usage, so data should not be gathered explicitly but under observation. In his own work, he devised several strategies to control for context in order to get at the vernacular, the most natural speech. For example, the sociolinguistic interview is designed to elicit less self-aware usage by asking intimate questions about death, near-death experiences, sex, etc (Labov, 1972b, p. 117). Labov also did anonymous experiments such as phone interviews and asking for directions on the street, disguising the real objective of obtaining linguistic data. For Hymes, however, context is not just the source of data. Forms and functions emerge within the context and
7

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

the role of ethnography of communication is to describe and to understand these particular, context bounded, instances of language (Figueroa, 1994, p. 44). Any individuals competence in using language to communicate entails the ability to choose context-appropriate utterances from the whole range of possible options (Ibid). Hymes theory of context is what Labovs is not it is a framework of the entwined role context and language play in communication. Labov and Hymes both reject the exclusion of the social context in received linguistics, but Labov maintains the separation between the social and the linguistics and simply correlates the two. Hymes, however, considers the two to be entwined. Hymes notion of context allows for greater fluidity and creativity, and therefore merely influences behavior but does not determine it. Labov takes a macro look at context, presupposing broad categories at the level of the speech community. In Labovian theory, the linguist gathers data in context; for ethnomethodologists, context is open-ended, multi-dimensional, emergent, and therefore a matter of ethnographic investigation. In a sense, both approaches to context are inadequate as they are merely reconstructions by the linguist, an abstraction away from the plurality of contexts, which as they exist realistically are open-ended and infinite, to something that can be described in terms of categories of features (Figueroa, 2009, p. 167). What is and what is not part of this theoretical reconstructed version of context is entirely up to the linguist, and this reconstruction can only be an imitation of language as it is lived (Ibid, p. 191). By stressing the importance of diversity and particularity, however, Hymes may be closer in his imitation than Labov is.

LCOM2001

Chiang Ka Yan Christy

[2009109926]

References

Figueroa, E. (1994). Sociolinguistic metatheory (1st ed.). Oxford: Pergamon. Figueroa, E. (2009). Sociolinguistics and utterance. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in sociolinguistics (162-196). New York: Routledge. Hymes, D. (2009) On communicative competence. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in sociolinguistics (58-81). New York: Routledge. Johnstone, B. & Marcellino W.M. (2011). Dell Hymes and the ethnography of communication. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (57-66). London: SAGE. Labov, W. (1972a). The study of language in its social context. In P.P. Gliglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (283-307). London: Penguin. Labov, W. (1972b). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1(1), 97-120. Labov, W. (2009). Some sociolinguistic principles. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in sociolinguistics (1-18). New York: Routledge. Shaul D. & Furbee, N.L. (1998). Language and Culture. Illinois, Waveland Press. Wodak, R, Johnstone B. & Kerswill P. (2011). Introduction. In In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics (1-7). London: SAGE.

(2498 words)