The Discipline of Sociology of Language Is it One or Is It Not?

Review of Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Advances in the Sociology of Language, volume II: Selected Studies and Applications. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.

Fishman’s book is a collection of polarisation around some very articles designed to reflect what he interesting issues. The trouble with this sees as certain tendencies in the volume is that it, for the most part, sociology of language (and/or does not address these issues. In sociolinguistics) over the last decade, particular, the core of the book takes tendencies towards more integration one side of two such important issues, around systematic questions, more data without directly addressing the issues orientation, greater use of quantitative themselves. techniques, and an increased interdisciplinary approach. The strong The concepts that sociolinguistics use implication is that the sociology of to characterise the sort of thing language has come into its own as a language is might be called, after substantial sub-discipline. Presumably, Kuhn, the linguistic paradigm. There this collection constitutes implicit are a hose of studies that have evidence for this. It is divided into five discovered things humans are doing sections: ‘Small Group Interaction,’ when they use natural language which ‘Large-Scale Socio-Cultural seem difficult or impossible to deal Processes,’ ‘Bilingualism and with using the linguistic paradigm. Diglossia,’ ‘Language Maintenance Other theories and studies argue that and Language Shift,’ and ‘Applied the whole conception of natural Sociology of Language: Policy, language use as some kind of Planning and Practice.’ As can be seen ‘performance’ of an abstract language from these titles the bulk of the book is ‘system’ is fundamentally wrong. The concerned with relatively macroscopic articles of Fishman’s volume mostly issues. make heavy use of linguists’ versions of what language is to define problems It is precisely because of the stated and data sets, without addressing the purpose of this reader that it is a issue of the appropriateness of the disappointment to this reviewer. concepts involved in these versions. Linguistics proper has developed an elaborate array of concepts for the Secondly, the book does indeed study of the abstract system— contain a large selection of studies language. Social science has been using quantitative approaches, but this handed the job of putting language is another major issue in the sociology back into the world, of studying natural of language. That is, virtually 90% of language use and acquisition directly. the currently popular quantitative How to accomplish this has become a techniques revolve around one idea: focal point of several very basic conceptualise your phenomenon as a theoretical and methodological collection of variables and computer controversies. Thus, to the reviewer, their statistical interrelations. There are the sociology of language is not huge questions about whether many currently characterised by topics in the sociology of language can homogeneity and consensus, but by be, or should be, studied in this way.

170 One of these questions is that of again, the book was not designed to measurement. Even in the case of present breakthroughs. categorical variables this question can be treated as the problem of assigning On the positive side, the field of the numbers to a set of qualitative sociology of language is virtually observations. For such assignments to pregnant with fascinating questions be valid, one’s qualitative observations and phenomena. Fishman’s work is have to satisfy certain mathematical sprinkled with such questions and such axioms, axioms that are not overly phenomena in the various articles. For familiar to most social scientists who example, much macroscopic work with are familiar with the customary language can almost use an questions of reliability and validity. In epidemiological metaphor of language experimental psychology, especially in as a sort of ‘virus’ in a host of language-related research, great population. One can then ask how it attention is often paid to this problem. interacts with other languages, how it It appears in many instances that there changes over time, how it moves are aspects of language use that do not geographically, etc. the book contains satisfy the axioms necessary for them a lot of this kind of material which to be treated as collections of variables. presents many interesting things to think about. Secondly, social scientists Another problem concerns the units of have been using their own natural analysis. In most experiments and language abilities, and those of their surveys individual persons are subjects, as tacit resources for a long measured on a variety of variables. In time without giving serious thought to many problems involving language the issues of doing social science with there are reasons to take sets of a natural language. Some of these individuals as the units with values on articles suggest general things for certain variables, or to sample social scientists to think about in this sociolinguistic situations rather than regard. For instance, one article persons. The issue often becomes a suggests that different languages may complicated one. In any case, the have their own independent effects on articles of this reader simply press the scores individuals get on social and customary techniques into service in psychological interviews (or studying their problems, often in questionnaires) conducted in one arbitrary ways, without justifying the language or another. use of these techniques or even mentioning the issues that might be In summary, the book does not, in involved here. general, bear on the currently major issues in the sociology of language. It might seem that I am criticising a For practitioners in this field it will be book for doing something that it did mostly a book of ‘some more studies.’ not set out to do. There is some truth to For the general social scientific reader, that, but there is also some truth to the the book will provide many issues that claim that the book gives the he has not thought about, as well as impression of a consensus and a indicating how social scientific homogeneity in a field where there are techniques are being used to study large controversies. Perhaps because of language and how the study of this emphasis, there do not seem to be language is being integrated into any major findings and/or research traditional social scientific concerns. procedures presented in the book. But,

171