Introduction
Sociolinguistic variations are often regarded as the attempts to make the language more vivid and lively. Originally, all the linguistic variations are aimed to make the differences between various social groups, emphasize the differences in sex, age, social position, profession etc. Thus, the study of the sociolinguistic variation is closely associated with the awareness of the various linguistic particularities and elements, which are associated with using language by various social and gender groups. The aim of this paper is to study the most common instances of these variations, and explain the origins of these variations, considering such factors as gender, age, level of familiarity, as well as the matters of the interest groups. Then, the attended data will be analyzed and researched from the perspectives of social and linguistic premises.
Data Collection
The data was collected by the means of communication with the respondents and participants of the research. Originally, they did not knew that they are participants, nevertheless, the research does not require the confidential or private information.
Thus, the most common sociolinguistic variables are the greetings. People greet each other or say good-bye in order to show their attitude towards each other or mark the moment of conversation or meeting start and termination. Thus, along with the traditional “Hi”, “Hello”, “Hey”, people often use “wuzzup”, nevertheless, variations in greetings are less common than variations of good-byes. Thus, members of a fire brigade say “See ya on a grand fire”, skaters or bikers sometimes say “keep your wheels dry”. Close friends often say “Take care of yourself”. In some groups you may hear “bye dude” and others.
An interesting observation should be stated about an immigrants’ English language. Thus, some British newcomers tend to pronounce the word often with “t” sound [‘oft(ə)n], as well as some reduced sounds like “k” in “knight” and others.
The people, which were observed are of various social groups. These are 12 males and 15 females. Five are aged from:
- 15 to 20,
- 7 – 21-25,
- 12 – 26-30
- 3 – 30-33
Almost all of them were in the surrounding of close friends or colleagues, therefore, the familiarity level was sufficient for the informal communication. One of them was a novice in a company.
Methodology
The methodology of the research is the analysis of the mentioned language tags and linguistic innovations, which were mentioned in the languages of various people. The linguistic tokens will be systematized into tables, pointing out sex, age and occupation of the participants. Thus, the familiarity levels, the social emphasis of the people’s origin may be stated.
Hypothesis
Basing on the observations, arranged within the various social and gender groups, the hypothesis, which should be made is that women use less informal words and word forms. As for the matters of taboo words, there was no opportunity to study this linguistic feature, as only one participant used it during the observation period.
Data Analysis
In spite of the informal surroundings, formal greetings were rather common, as mist people prefer using free of jargon language. Moreover, taboo words were not avoided only by the members of a fire brigade, as one of them considered that the other was in a hospital with serious burns, and taboo words were just the expression of emotions. From the sociolinguistic considerations, there is strong necessity to mention that these differences in pronunciation, use of taboo words, use of jargon etc., emphasize the social structure of the researched area. Thus, as Meyerhoff (2006, p. 219) emphasized:
The sociolinguistic variationist enterprise begins on the premise that dialect variation is far from free or haphazard, but is governed by ‘orderly heterogeneity’ – structured variation. This ‘structure’ is manifested in a number of ways, most notably in the regular patterns found when sociolinguists correlate social structure with linguistic structure. Another very frequently noted pattern is the tendency for women to use standard forms of stable dialect features more than men. Within each social class group, women consistently use less of the non-standard pronunciation than men do.
In the light of this consideration, it becomes clear why women are using less informal words, and why they are more traditional in their language. Consequently, there is strong necessity to emphasize that the sociolinguistic environment, which is defining the variations of the linguistic norms within various social groups.
Results
Originally, this systematization included the most common language tags and words, which are commonly used by these 27 people in their common environment.
Discussion
In accordance with the methodology and the offered hypothesis, it should be emphasized that the main differences in linguistic variations are closely associated with the age group differentiation, but not the gender group. Surely, the language of most people is defined by the surrounding environment, the type of occupation and the social background. Thus, if someone communicates with the representatives of the other age group, part of the vocabularies will be passed from one group to the other or to a single person. The amount of the people, subjected to observation is not sufficient for making proper conclusions. This thesis is emphasized by Meyerhoff (2006, p. 156):
Age-graded variation is a stable variation, which varies within a population based on age. That is, speakers of a particular age will use a specific linguistic form in successive generations. In accordance with a linguistic survey it was stated that two-thirds of the 15-20 aged group were using the informal language forms more often then the older groups.
In the light of this consideration, it should be emphasized that the necessity to differ the sociolinguistic variables, which define the particularities of the various groups. In accordance with the stated hypothesis and methodology, it should be emphasized that the differences and the variations of various language tags are defined mainly by the age of the conversation participants.
Conclusion
Finally, it should be stated that the main differences of the language, and linguistic variations do not have the solid basement, and can not be explained by a single factor, as the factors are numerous, and they are often intervened.
Reference
Meyerhoff, M. (2006) Introducing Sociolinguistics. Routledge Publishing.