Every human being participates in society and has relations to other human beings. What makes us human is the ability to speak. In order to communicate, people have to find a shared language. There is the fiction of Daniel Defoe's “Robinson Crusoe”, but this is an exception. For to survive and to earn our daily bread we have to express our will and organise ourselves. In modern linguistics the expression network is very common. Every human being participates in a more or less elaborated network. The expression network has got its origin in computer science. There we talk about computer networks. It is possible to combine computers with each other and they can exchange information. This essay is about linguistic networks, that are networks between human beings. In order to discuss the notions “network” and “network relations” I refer to my own experiences on a typical Monday during semester time at Cardiff University. I also want to mention code-switching and describe a classical model of a linguistic network: William Labov’s “Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores”. Last but not least I want to criticise the choice of parameters for quality of linguistic networks in linguistics. Why do linguists not discuss the emotional quality of networks?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Main Part
3. Conclusion
4. Reference
Objectives and Topics
The paper examines the sociolinguistic concepts of "network" and "network relations," contrasting their technical origins in cybernetics and computer science with their application in human social interactions. It aims to critique traditional linguistic models for their focus on social structure at the expense of emotional and qualitative dimensions of human relationships, using the author’s personal experiences at Cardiff University as a reflective basis.
- Theoretical definitions of network theory in cybernetics and linguistics
- Application of Labov’s social stratification and accommodation theory
- Analysis of code-switching phenomena among multilingual speakers
- Practical evaluation of personal network density and multiplexity
- Critique of linguistic models regarding the role of emotion and intimacy
Excerpt from the Book
Main Part
Firstly, I want to make an excursion to computer science. Secondly, I have to say that I am an exchange student from Germany and I am living in the UK for nine months. This constellation indicates that my linguistic network here in the UK is not very dense.
There is a network theory in computer science: A network comes into being when at least three stations are linked together in order to exchange information. If only two stations are linked you have got the dual communication model of Shannon and Wiener (Flechtner, 1966). It consists of sender, channel, message and receiver. In cybernetics you find a network when at least two circuits are linked through a so-called knot. So a network has got at least three stations and can send and receive messages through a channel. In network theory the three stations are computers that are linked through wires, modems or through a field of radiomagnetic waves but not lightwaves. When you use the notion network in social science or in linguistics, it is a relation between more than two people. A network for unemployed people in Germany for example is a social centre where unemployed people meet with social workers and get information about how to manage their situation. You can define “network relations” as exchange or tie of any kind between three or more points. But the exchange is more than a simple physical impulse. There must be a feedback.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction establishes the necessity of communication for human survival and defines the essay's intent to explore linguistic networks through personal experience and established academic models.
2. Main Part: This section bridges cybernetic network theory with social science, analyzes Labov's social stratification and accommodation theory, and provides a case study of the author’s personal social and linguistic network.
3. Conclusion: The conclusion argues that existing linguistic models are insufficient because they ignore the emotional and psychological aspects of human relationships, suggesting an interdisciplinary approach.
4. Reference: This chapter lists the academic literature and sources used to support the sociolinguistic arguments presented in the essay.
Keywords
Sociolinguistics, network theory, network relations, accommodation theory, code-switching, social stratification, density, multiplexity, cybernetics, language transfer, bilingualism, social interaction, human communication, psychology, sociology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper fundamentally explores how the concept of "network" and "network relations" is applied in sociolinguistics, moving from technical definitions to the analysis of human social and language patterns.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Central themes include the intersection of cybernetic network theory and human linguistics, social stratification, linguistic accommodation, the dynamics of code-switching, and the role of intimacy in social networks.
What is the primary research goal of this essay?
The goal is to analyze linguistic network models while critiquing their limitations, particularly their historical tendency to ignore the emotional quality of human relationships.
Which scientific methods does the author employ?
The author uses a combination of literature review, theoretical analysis of established models (like Labov), and an auto-ethnographic approach by documenting personal daily experiences at university.
What is the primary focus of the main body of the text?
The main body contrasts computer science network models with social structures, discusses William Labov’s stratification studies, provides detailed examples of code-switching, and explores concepts of network density and multiplexity through the author's own life.
How would you characterize the primary keywords of this study?
The keywords center on sociolinguistic variables like network density, accommodation, code-switching, and social stratification, reflecting both technical and social aspects of language use.
How does the author define network density in the context of the essay?
Referencing Milroy, the author defines a network as relatively dense when a large number of persons to whom an individual is linked are also linked to one another.
What critique does the author offer regarding linguistic models and emotion?
The author argues that linguistic models frequently neglect the emotional and psychological realities of human interaction, such as intimacy, lonesomeness, and the underlying power structures in relationships.
Why does the author differentiate between "borrowing" and "code-switching"?
The author notes that while code-switching involves the alternating use of two or more languages, the use of a single isolated word from a target language is technically classified as borrowing.
- Quote paper
- Dr. phil. Roland Scheller (Author), 2000, Social and linguistic networks, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/277756
