sign in sign up
<<
Home , Idiolect

Idiolect and Its Usage Among Speakers گویش فردی و کاربرد آن در میان گوینده گان زبان Esmail Qasemyar, associate professor at Bamyan university

Abstract In this article is tried to figure out the position of idiolect while using among language speakers. It is clear that, if we consider any individual speakers of a given language and / or of a language there will be a massive variation in the way of its words pronunciation due to impact of idiolect. Furthermore, an idiolect can be the distinctive speech of an individual which is linguistically pattern regarded as unique among speakers of a person’s language or of the people who are speaking in their own way while communicating with one another.

Key words: Idiolect; usage of idiolect; variation of language; second language and language speaker.

1. Introduction The term idiolect as a part of language variation plays a crucial role for understanding of speakers in language diversity. Speakers of any given language or dialect while communicating with each other have miscellaneous pronunciation, expressions and the way of their own individual talking. Speakers and listeners of language should presumably study language, but there is room for disagreement about how the ordinary notion of a language should be refined for the not so ordinary purposes of scientific or philosophical inquiry. One central question is to what extent, or in what ways, the appropriate object of study is socially or communally constituted. One answer, of course, is that it isn’t. From this point of view, the primary object of study is idiolect. An idiolect, in this sense, belongs to a single individual, in the sense that one’s idiolect reflects one’s own linguistic capabilities and, hence, is fully determined by facts about oneself. An alternative is to hold that the primary objects of study should be common , because they are the common property of a community of individuals. It needs, of course, not to be part of this view that common languages are individuated as we individuate languages in ordinary discourse: Probably so or vice versa. The important claim is that such languages are, in some way, socially constituted in the sense that their properties—most importantly, for present purposes, their semantic properties—are fixed not by the linguistic capabilities of a single individual but only by relations among the linguistic capabilities of an entire community of individuals (Richard, 2006:501-535). Present-day clearly demonstrates a growth of attention to the study of language variation – particularly idiolect. Initially the idea comes from Sapir who stated that, everyone knows that language is variable.”(Sapir, 1921: 147). However, “it was not until the advent of a half-century ago that the admission of language variation became more than a footnote to (Wolfram, 2011: 333). Nowadays, the study of variation is a highly productive field of research. In this article, it is considered that, the notion of language variability in general and to define the linguistic variable as a part in the analysis and description of idiolect variation properly. Finally, the present study attempts to discuss idiolect among language variation within the second language, namely the usage of idiolect in the realm of second language speakers.

2. What is idiolect? This term linguistically refer to the way that a particular person uses language, with comparing dialect which is the form of a language that is spoken in one area with , words and pronunciation that may be different from other forms of the same language and with comparison of other part of language variation - accent which is a way of pronouncing the words of a language that shows which country, area or social class a person comes from and / or the emphasis that you should give to part of a word when saying it ( Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2010 ). In the other hand, the term idiolect refers to the linguistic system of an individual speaker – one’s person dialect and / or a dialect can be seen as an abstraction deriving from the analysis of a large number of idiolects . . . (Crystal, 2003). Furthermore, linguists use the term “idiolect” to define an individual’s unique use of language, but this term seems to be more of a convention than a scientific objective fact. There is no definitive conclusive study that would prove without any doubt that there is such a thing as a linguistic fingerprint. More than that, the American linguist Noam Chomsky claims even (in his famous Universal Grammar theory) that we cannot explain or predict one’s linguistic performance (meaning one’s actual expression of language), or the “E-language”1 because this is just a form of one’s innate linguistic competence, the “I-language”2 modified by external stimuli. In this case, a complete understanding of one’s performance phenomena is, according to Chomsky, beyond the scope of scientific investigation. In his view, the properties of an E- language are determined by how an I-language is used, and as such their systematic characterization in a theory will be practically impossible (Chomsky, 1986, 1988, 1995, 2000; Barber, 2014). Another, more obvious, practical problem in trying to identify the author of a non-genre text is that there is too much variation in a person’s use of language or “style” over the years, depending on that person’s experiences, ulterior education, etc. What may also influence that person’s writing style at a particular point in time is a person’s mood, as well as to whom the text is addressed, or if the text is written in a rush or not, thus spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes occurring. Because of the “free” nature of non-genre texts (in the sense that they are not necessarily subjected to the constraints of a genre), they are inherently more chaotic, the writer

1 E: External 2 I: Internal

sometimes mixing registers, changing the meaning of one or more word, or from one topic to another without any segue. All these variables determine one’s style (or one’s idiolect) to never be fixed, predictable, or permanent, making it harder for a forensic linguist to clearly pinpoint the true author of a text. With that being said, there seem to be, however, consistencies in the writing of a particular person at a particular point in time, and similarities in regards to the use of language within social groups of any kind (ethnicity, age, gender). The social background of a person influences the way in which he or she uses the language. A sociolinguist can distinguish in a person’s linguistic acts such phenomena as diglossia (the use of language in a more “highstandard” manner by the upper class, as opposed to a more “low-standard” use, by the lower class), domain (the use of language is different in different social contexts), register (language used in association with a certain topic, activity, etc.), or analyze them from a pragmatic point of view (the meaning of words in a social context). There have been observed also several differences between the two genders’ use of language (we are talking about gender, not sex, as they are not always the same). One of those differences is that the feminine gender, supposedly, uses more self-disclosure language in their communication with others than the male gender, presenting a tendency to share their problems, experiences and feelings, to offer or to ask for emotional support. This is in contrast with the masculine gender’s supposed tendency toward non-self-disclosure, their use of language emphasizing more a concern to find solutions and offer advice when confronted to a problem (Tannen, 1990; Dindia & Allen, 1992). In conclusion, there might not be a “linguistic fingerprint” in the strict sense, as in the real fingerprint that remains the same over the course of one’s lifetime, but there are enough consistencies within a social group, it seems, that allow us to reduce the number of authors that could have written a non- genre text. There are also enough consistencies in the writing of a particular person at a particular point in his or her life that allow us sometimes to be able to say whether he or she is or is not the author of a particular non-genre text. It seems that if one has to determine the authorship of a text, one must analyze the other texts written by the potential author (or authors) at the time when the text in question was written. This is probably the most reliable way to determine as objectively as possible the real authors of that text (or at least to narrow the field to a few candidates) without any concern that their style might have changed over time.

3. The Notion of Variability In order to meet their communication needs one and the same person may alternate different elements in different circumstances which sometime refers to as intraspeaker variation (Meyerhoff, 2009: 203). Such a type is commonly discussed in linguistics and it involves taking all the social and linguistic factors into account. Besides, researchers mention that the study of language variation is central to the solution of fundamental problems in linguistic theory (Bailey 1973; Labov 2001). Variation also facilitates differentiation among individuals, social or regional groups and nations. Variability can be observed everywhere in language, at all levels, in different dialects and different registers. In the past linguistic tradition grammar was assumed to be a fixed unchanging system. However, different writers and speakers use this system differently. It is recognized by many scientists that language variation concerns differences that could have some social significance, such as speech behaviour of certain social groups (communities), socially meaningful aspects of individual speaker performance, etc. In other words, we can say that linguistic variation is functionally motivated, related to different purposes, influenced by different communicative tasks, produced under different circumstances. Wolfram (2006) claims that “in traditional linguistic description the notion of variation within structural units has often been analysed as “free fluctuation,” “optional rules,” and “free variants.” Nevertheless, according to David Crystal (2003: 189), this type of variability has been determined as “an area of little importance”. One of the essential elements in the study of linguistic variation is the notion of linguistic variable. It can be defined as “a structural unit that includes a set of fluctuating variants showing meaningful co-variation with an independent set of variables“ (Wolfram, 2006: 334). The linguistic variable was first introduced in early variation studies by William Labov (1966) who is considered to be a founder of language variation studies. Researchers all over the world have adapted set of methodological innovations to track how language use varies according to social factors (e.g., speaker’s gender, ethnic group or age), how it is influenced by social and regional dialects (e.g., certain local community or social group) or by the register (e.g., particular context of use). Some of them even believe that to consider identifying aspects of people's lifestyles can lead us to be more innovative or conservative as speakers. The notion of the linguistic variable can be applied to different levels of language. However, in sociolinguistics history, in synchronic and apparent time studies a vast majority of works deals with studying and explaining phonological and morphosyntactic

variation, whereas syntactic variation was especially important in diachronic studies. In synchronic and apparent time studies on variation natural conversational interviews were usually used as primary databases. For this reason syntactic variation was not the object of such researches, since in natural conversation syntactic phenomena are not observed at sufficient frequency levels which makes it difficult to conduct meaningful quantitative analyses of systematic variability.

4. Variation and Language Change As David Crystal mentions (1996: 15), language change is unpredictable. We can be aware of our linguistic past, but no one is able to predict our linguistic future. A static view on language denies the existence of change, makes us believe that is fixed, with little or no variability at all. There are certain prescribed rules which cannot be neglected. The standard allows just of one variant of grammatical feature and speakers may conclude that only one alternative is the correct choice. However, “a dynamic view on language recognizes the existence of change, informs us about it and focuses on those areas where change is ongoing“ (Croft, 2000: 45-48). According to Biber (1988: 32-33), the change is to be found in variation, i.e., in the alternative usages to be found at all linguistic levels. Scientists focus on actual patterns of use and try to explain the possible reasons for their usage. Furthermore, one should be aware of basic differences between the variability within standard English and nonstandard dialects. The former are shared generally by the members of all linguistic communities, while the latter are restricted to particular social or regional dialects. As a matter of fact, all these - international and intranational, regional and social accents and dialects, occupational varieties, features which express contrast of age, gender and formality, features which distinguish speech from writing – may be potential diagnostic points for future linguistic change (Sankoff, Labov & Kroch, 1989: 78-80). The diachronic analysis of systematic language variation gives a researcher a unique opportunity to observe language change in progress. It also provides a kind of proof for examining the empirical validity of different models of language change. This approach, suggested by Pintzuk (2003: 513), illustrates the “sequential actuation” of change, when it starts in one more favoured linguistic environment and then spreads to a less favoured one. However, sometimes there may be cases when speakers create some new forms at the same time in

different environments (so-called “simultaneous actuation”). These cases are known to provoke language change, or even accelerate it. A great number of researcher have discussed different models in an attempt to represent the systematic properties of language changes and their heterogeneity. Thus, Bailey, for example, claimed that change started variably in a limited, natural linguistic environment and then spread from it to other environments (Bailey, 1973). According to Wolfram (2006: 339 - 340), Bailey‘s model assumed that “the variable change in the earliest environment would ideally show greater variability than changes in other environments where the change started later“. Thus, in many cases the variation we observe in today’s speech might be a cause of tomorrow’s change. Early variationists (e.g., Labov 1969; Cedergren & Sankoff 1974) came to the conclusion that variation was inherent within a language system. Moreover, it proved to be relevant for the speaker‘s competence. It was also emphasized that such studies should be incorporated into the domain of grammar. These ideas were implemented in variable rules, which included ordered constraints and probabilities associated with grammatical variation. Later, as Fasold mentiones (1991: 3-4), variable rules were abandoned because there was a shift in linguistic paradigm towards the formulation of universal principles rather than specific language rules. Meanwhile, new grammatical teachings appeared to revise the theories about the assumed inherency of variation. They emphasized that variation consists in alternative settings of the parameters and speakers have at least two , set in different ways. Accordingly, it appeared that “variation in this tradition is not distinguished from bilingualism; such speakers have two more nearly identical grammars and can produce utterances reflecting either or any of them.” (Fasold, 2003: 232). In present-day linguistics there is still much dispute over the problems of variation analysis, the representation of speakers’ language capabilities and the role of systemic variability in a grammar of language. Moreover, in a large number of modern researches variation is often interpreted as grammatical competition between two distinct options which, under regular circumstances, do not allow any optionality (Pintzuk, 2003). These options correspond to contradictory settings of parameters. In this case variation is treated as the outcome of speaker’s alternation between different competing grammars. Some representatives of also doubt the hypothesis that variation can be a part of grammar. They consider variation to be the result of slight differences in the manner of expressing one’s point of view, i.e., depending on how speakers feel about what they are talking about, or who they are talking

to. Linguistic variables are believed to be realized by variants with the same meaning. In other words, variation for them indicates some social or linguistic difference in meaning (Biber 1988).

5. Second language speakers In the realm of linguistics one of the crucial component is second language, for second language, there are many explanations given by scholars of linguistics. Second language is commonly used in addition to mother tongue or it is referred to language which learn for the specific purposes, the purposes may depends on economic, education, politics, journey, business or any other cultural and social aspects of the learners. Nowadays due to globalization, the needs of second language is much more tangible for all people – particularly educated people, because of easily interacting and close communications. Speakers of any language in all parts of the globe are trying to speak with at least one extra language – especially international languages which we feel seriously for our communicating nowadays. For many linguists the term first language refers to mother tongue is distinguishable from second language which relates to a language other than one’s mother tongue used for a specific purpose, e.g. for government, education and other social dimensions (Crystal, 2003). Any language speaker using a search engine has his/her own set of beliefs about the language and content of the documents they are searching for. However, for the most commonly used languages there are large divergences between usage in different countries and regions. This despite the existence of standardization bodies and accepted standards for teaching. The majority of young children whose parents are able to speak with more than a language or their mother tongue, their children are able to acquire a second language more similar to their native language or mother tongue. The vast majority of people are not exposed to a second language until much later (Yule, 1996:190-191). Further, for many people, the ability to use their first language is rarely matched and one can learn and speak his/her language better than at fifteen or twenty – five. Many proposals have been made which might enable learners to become as proficient in a second language as they are in their first language. Mostly, the children are more successful than adults while learning and speaking in second language. If we consider the children, particularly young one, their ability is much faster than adult. Skehan in (1989) suggests that individual ability may vary by other factors. Other factors like personality, language learning style and motivation must be considered before taking into account. He further

concludes that language-learning aptitude is not completely distinct from general cognitive abilities, as represented by intelligence tests, but it is far from the same thing. Long (1990) argues that for language learners of more than 15 years of age, it is difficult to acquire native like fluency and an absence of an accent. Saville-Troike (2006) agrees with Long (1990) that, some older learners can achieve native-like proficiency, although they definitely constitute a minority of second language learners. Brown (2000) states that unlike factors of age, aptitude, and motivation, its role in explaining why some second language learners are more successful than others has not been well established, it involves a complex (and as yet poorly understood) interaction with specific second language social and learning contexts.

6. Conclusion

As mentioned above, an idiolect is a person’s specific, unique way of speaking. Every one of us has his or her own idiolect that differs from the way other people talk. A dialect is a version of a language spoken by a group of people. An idiolect is much smaller — it’s the way a particular person speaks, at a specific time, as distinct from others. This word is mainly used by linguists when discussing differences in speech from one person to another. Like your fingerprint, your idiolect is unique. It’s kind of like a micro-dialect. In the other hand, the idiolect; and in being individual, is idiosyncratic, creative, spontaneous, and undergoing a continuous process of variation and change. The idiolect is indeed the seat of language and the locus of variation and change and that this change comes about through idiolectal contact. There is a constant process of dual or multi directional (for more than two speakers in a discourse) accommodation at work on idiolects across the medium of Language speakers. In terms of language one of the most significant issues is idiolect which we can find either in first language or second language speakers. This research paper could reveals the influences of social context on idiolect as well. Speakers of any given language definitely faces with diversity of idiolect which this research reveals it briefly. Finally, one things should be cleared that is – if we consider any social context of a given language either first or second language, we can find the diversity of idiolect among all speakers of language in the globe.

.

References Bailey, N. (1973). Variation and Linguistic Theory. Washington, DC: Center for . Barber, A. (2014). Idiolects. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). [Online] Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idiolects/ Biber, D. (1988): Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N, J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Cedegren, H. & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of Competence, In Language 50, pp. 233-255. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1995). Language and Nature. In Mind, 104 (413): 1–61. Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman. Crystal, D. (1996). Reflecting Linguistic Change. In The Teacher Trainer, Vol.10, # 1, pp.1516. Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and . 5th ed. Blackwell publishing Ltd. USA. Dindia, K. and Allen, M. (1992). Sex Differences in Disclosure: A Meta-analysis. In Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124. Fasold, R.W. (1991). The Quiet Demise of Variable Rules. In American Speech 66, pp. 3 - 4. Fasold, R.W. (2003). Language Variation in Variation and Formal . In Preston, D. R. (ed.) Needed research in American dialects. Publication of the American Dialect Society, No. 88., Durham. Duke University Press, pp. 232. Labov, W. & Kroch, A. (eds.) (1989). Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, Deletion and Inherent Variability of The English Copula. In Language, 45, pp. 715-762. Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. II: Social factors, Malden/Oxford: Blackwell. Long, M. (1990). Maturational Constraints on Language Development. Studies in Second 12, 251-285. Meyerhoff, M.(2009). Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. In Linguistics - Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, pp.202-224, available at : http://www.eolss.net/ebooklib. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010), 6th ed., Oxford University Press. Pintzuk, S. (2003). Variationist Approaches to Syntactic Variation. In Joseph, B.D.& Janda, R. D. (eds.) The handbook of , Malden/Oxford: Blackwell., p. 513. Richard, G. H. Jr (2006). Handbook of Child Psychology. Edited by William Damon, Richard M. lerner. 6th ed. Vol. 1: Theoretical model of human development. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New Jersey, USA. pp. 501 – 535. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co. Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Harper Collins. Wolfram, S. (2011). Handbook of Research on Teaching the Arts. Edited by Diene Lapp, Dauglas Fisher. – 3rd ed. , Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, USA. p. 333. Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, pp. 190-191.

چکیده

در این مقاله سعی گردیده تا نقش و جایگاه گویش های فردی در میان گوینده گان زبان به صورت فشرده به بحث و بررسی گرفته شود. این واضیح است، اگر ما گوینده گان هر زبان را از لحاظ گویش های فردی و یا زبانی مورد بررسی قرار دهیم؛ در میابیم که تنوع آن در بخش کاربرد واژه ها بسیار متداول و عام است به جهت این که گویش های فردی نقش خود را در میان گوینده به حد باالی ایفاء می نماید. گذشته از آن، گویش فردی میتواند از سخن هر گوینده ای به صراحت شناخته شود؛ مورد که از لحاظ علم زبانی نیز به آن به شکل گسترده پرداخته شده اند.

واژه های کلیدی: گویش فردی؛ کاربرد گویش فردی؛ تنوع زبانی؛ زبان دوم و گوینده زبان