Social Networks and Communities of Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 9 Social networks and communities of practice Key terms in this chapter: ■ core, peripheral, secondary network ■ life-mode members ■ community of practice ■ dense and loose networks ■ brokers ■ uniplex and multiplex ties INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter we looked at the way in which linguistic variation can be analysed in terms of social classes. Social class can be used to group large swathes of people without the researcher needing to know them very well, and it would be impossible to imagine all mem- bers of a single social class knowing each other at all. As we saw, even a more sociologically inflected definition of class (such as Weber’s) sees commonalities across people in light of their aspirations and life trajectories, not whether they interact with each other or not. However, the topics of this chapter – social networks and communities of practice – are groupings that are based on frequency and quality of members’ interaction. Communities of practice are defined by shared practices and goals; the salience and meaning of those practices and goals can only be determined through detailed or ingroup knowledge. Because these three levels of social cat- egorisation (social class, networks and communities of practice) ask different questions about the social meaning of a linguistic variable, they can be used effectively with different kinds of data to analyse – and, more importantly, to understand – the meaning of linguistic variation. In this chapter, we turn to social groupings that may have more local meaning or more salience in the day-to-day workings of speakers’ lives than something like social class does. They will gradually form a bridge between the way variation patterns in larger social group- ings of class to the more interpersonal view of variation that informed Chapters 3–6 when we considered the impact of addressee and domain on the way speakers talk. SOCIAL NETWORKS Copyright © 2018. Routledge. All rights reserved. © 2018. Routledge. Copyright Social networks can be defined as ‘the relationships [individuals] contract with others . [reaching] out through social and geographical space linking many individuals’ (Milroy and Gordon 2003: 117). Whereas grouping people into social classes involves compartmentalising Meyerhoff, Miriam. <i>Introducing Sociolinguistics</i>, Routledge, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/senc/detail.action?docID=5494448. Created from senc on 2019-10-28 01:37:05. SOCIAL NETWORKS AND COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE 207 them on the basis of factors that may matter to society as a whole (e.g., how prestigious their jobs are), social networks group people on the basis of factors that are more idiosyncratic. Social networks are defined by who your friends are, who your kids are friends with, who you live near, who you have dinner or have drinks with, and who you work with. Network analyses also ask how often the members of all these groups are the same, and how often they are completely different. It is very important for sociolinguists to have a sense of what the patterns of associations are between people who are friends or roughly social equals within a community. This is because the diffusion of linguistic change happens relatively fast and very efficiently along what we might call horizontal channels (e.g., within one age group and a social cohort). What we might call vertical channels (e.g., channels between generations or across big social divides) are a comparatively slow and inefficient means of transmitting innovation. So it is common knowledge that kids talk more like their friends than they do like their parents (and that’s what gives rise to the nice age differences underpinning the apparent time construct discussed in Chapter 7). The significance of social networks emerges implicitly in sociolinguistics as early as Labov’s study of Martha’s Vineyard. There, as we saw, the networks of the Chilmark fisher- men and the Menemsha Native Americans were characterised (respectively) by higher levels of (ay) and (aw) centralisation than were found in other groups. The Native American commu- nity was a relatively self-contained network of individuals because of the regional and cultural isolation of the reservation. The fishing community also formed a reasonably self-contained network. Partly this was because they were located at the end of the island furthest from the growing tourism industry, but their network was also characterised by a more general orienta- tion to traditional Island ways of life. However, the systematic use of social networks as the basis for analysing linguistic vari- ation is most closely associated with James and Lesley Milroy’s research in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The Milroys found that the patterns of language change that they observed correlated in very informative ways with the web of relationships that make up social networks. They argued, therefore, that social networks are at least as important as macro-social categories like class for understanding how changes take hold and spread across a community (or communities). Indeed, in some communities, social class may not be at all relevant and linguistic inno- vations or shared features may be defined in terms of people’s social networks alone. For example, many people working on sign languages observe that standard divisions of social class don’t seem to be very appropriate for deaf people. That’s because in many communities, deaf people have restricted access to education and employment. Since these are (as we have seen) two of the most widely used measures for deciding which social class someone falls into, this makes class problematic in the deaf community. Instead, when there is variation, the main social factor that predicts what signs someone is likely to use is what school they went to. This is not about level of education; rather, it is about who your densest networks are with. The importance of school as a predictor of lexical variation shows up in studies of signed languages in the New Zealand (McKee et al. 2011), Hong Kong (Siu 2016) and Germany (Eichmann and Rosenstock 2014). In the next two sections, some basic terminology associated with network analysis is introduced, as well as ways in which an analyst can identify social networks. I then introduce Copyright © 2018. Routledge. All rights reserved. © 2018. Routledge. Copyright the concept of the community of practice. We will see that communities of practice are a specific form of social network. They are defined even more strictly by members’ negotiated shared behaviour(s). Then we look at some case studies where social networks have been Meyerhoff, Miriam. <i>Introducing Sociolinguistics</i>, Routledge, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/senc/detail.action?docID=5494448. Created from senc on 2019-10-28 01:37:05. 208 SOCIAL NETWORKS AND COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE usefully deployed for analysing linguistic variation. (We will examine more case studies of communities of practice in Chapter 10.) Finally, the chapter will conclude with a discussion of some more theoretical issues aris- ing from the discussion of social class or social status and social networks, especially the relationship between class and style. Defining networks If membership in a particular social class can be determined on the basis of all sorts of external factors, but especially an individual’s occupation, what determines membership in a social network? Social network theory was introduced to sociolinguistics from sociology. In other fields of the social sciences, social networks have been found to have a big impact on how inno- vations are spread through society. You can look, for instance, at how fashions for sneakers/ trainers spread, or how new forms of technology spread using social networks (so, as you can imagine, marketers love studying social networks). Some researchers working in the Digital Humanities have also found it useful to plot networks of characters in novels – this can show how characters move across space in the novel world and how the author introduces them and lets them drift out of the narrative in relation to other characters (Luczak-Roesch et al. 2018). Naturally, if we can show that networks influence the social dispersion of innovations in fields like knowledge and technology, it would be nice to know whether they also affect the spread of linguistic innovation. How can you identify a social network? One way of going about it is for the researcher to observe who interacts with who in a community and to note how or why they are interacting with each other. Slowly, patterns of interaction will emerge and these can be said to consti- Core network tute individuals’ social networks. This method has the advantage of being objective and, like member a census, can provide a comprehensive slice-of-life picture of the way the community was structured at the time the research took place. If you were to construct a social network based Term used by Jenny Cheshire to describe on your Facebook contacts (and their Facebook contacts, and the contacts of their contacts the members centrally etc.), you would be doing something like this. The analytic tools would search across all your involved and actively posts over a specified time period and draw a line connecting who interacts and responds to participating in a whom during that time. friendship network. Another way of identifying networks is for the researcher to let the people s/he is observ- Distinguished from peripheral ing define their own social networks. That is, you can simply ask the subjects in your study and secondary something like ‘who are your best friends?’ or ‘name all the people that you had a conver- members who were sation with yesterday’. The researcher can then build up a network on the basis of all the progressively less answers. Some problems inevitably arise: Tim might name Nick as a best friend, but Nick involved.