PART 1 History of Sociolinguistics 55434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd 1 33/18/2010/18/2010 33:52:14:52:14 PPMM 55434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd 2 33/18/2010/18/2010 33:52:15:52:15 PPMM 1 Ferguson and Fishman: Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language Bernard Spolsky 1.1 INTRODUCTION its social context’, and to explore the nature of the discipline that emerged, trying to explain why it is To introduce this handbook, the editors map out sometimes called ‘sociolinguistics’ and sometimes the gestation of sociolinguistics by focusing on six ‘the sociology of language’, terms occasionally of the ‘founding fathers’: William Labov, who used interchangeably (Paulston and Tucker, 1997)1 pioneered a school devoted to showing the rele- though elsewhere (Bright, 1992; Gumperz, 1971) vance of social determinants of variation for clearly distinguished. linguistic theory; Basil Bernstein, the British I shall also mention founders omitted from the sociologist whose work on class-related ‘codes’ selected six, such as William Bright, Allen led to a brief flirtation with American sociolin- Grimshaw, Einar Haugen, Uriel Weinreich and guists; Dell Hymes, whose adaptation of Roman Sue Ervin-Tripp2 who were also pioneers. Haugen Jakobson’s theory of communication (Jakobson, was, by 1963, a senior scholar: after 30 years as 1960) shaped the ethnography of communication chair of Scandinavian Studies at the University of and educational linguistics and who molded soci- Wisconsin, he was about to take up a chair in olinguistics by editing several pioneering volumes Scandinavian and Linguistics at Harvard. He had and the flagship journal Language in Society; taught a course on bilingualism at the 1948 John Gumperz, founder of interactional sociolin- Linguistic Institute, and his book on the Norwegian guistics; and Charles Ferguson and Joshua language in America (Haugen, 1953) established Fishman. All except Bernstein (although he was him as the leading authority on bilingualism and invited) attended the Linguistic Institute in language shift. He was the first linguist to write Bloomington in the summer of 1964, the land- about the ecology of language, the title of his 1972 mark event that launched the field. All (except collected papers (Haugen, 1972). His study of Bernstein again) served on the Committee on Norwegian language planning (Haugen, 1966) Sociolinguistics of the Social Sciences Research was a groundbreaking work. Council, established in 1963 to plan the 1964 A second major publication in 1953 was that of seminar and that operated until the early 1970s. Uriel Weinreich (1953a), a seminal work that is All participated in the many conferences and still regularly cited as the basis for understanding publications which fashioned sociolinguistics in language contact. Fishman (1997c), a friend of those years, and each continued to publish for his3 from Yiddish youth movement days, summa- the next 30 years, expanding their own interpre- rizes his work in sociolinguistics, starting with an tations of the field. My task in this chapter is to undergraduate paper in Yiddish on Welsh lan- describe and assess the specific contribution of guage revival (U. Weinreich, 1944), his doctoral Ferguson and Fishman to the ‘study of language in dissertation on Swiss bilingualism, a study of 55434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd 3 33/18/2010/18/2010 33:52:15:52:15 PPMM 4 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS the Russian treatment of minority languages (Labov, 1966) that continues to encourage (U. Weinreich, 1953b), and the beginning of the study of socially-explainable language variation. language and culture atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry Gumperz and Hymes were editing the papers from published a quarter of a century after his prema- the 1963 American Association of Anthropology ture death. Fishman recalls a paper that the two of meeting (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972), which them did not write in 1954 on the societal nature remains a foundation text. Even without the of language; Weinreich’s draft was too linguistic seminar, research and publication in the field and Fishman’s too sociological to negotiate a were by then well underway. Bloomington 1964 common version. Weinreich visited the 1964 was a milestone rather than a starting point, but Linguistic Institute, delivering four lectures on a significant one. semantic theory (U. Weinreich, 1966). His theory of semantics, Fishman suggested, was ‘profoundly cultural and socio-situational’, and so a comfort- ing antidote to the anti-sociolinguistic theory that 1.2 FISHMAN MEETS FERGUSON Chomsky was establishing.4 Weinreich had a strong influence on many of the founders, not least In his introduction to the festschrift for Ferguson’s on his student William Labov. Labov (1997: 147) 65th birthday (Fishman, Tabouret-Keller, Clyne, stresses the contribution to his own development Krishnamurti and Abdulaziz 1986: v), Fishman8 made by a teacher not much older than him and recalls his first contact with Ferguson: ‘It took especially the importance of Weinreich’s part in almost a month for Charles Ferguson and me to writing a paper which explained the relevance of realize that we were living next door to each other sociolinguistics to the understanding of language during the Summer Linguistic Institute of 1964 change (U. Weinreich, Labov and Herzog, 1968). at Indiana University.’ They had communicated A third founder was Susan Ervin-Tripp who briefly before that; during the summer, both in joined the Committee on Psycholinguistics as a the seminar that Ferguson chaired ‘primus inter graduate assistant. Her distinction between com- pares’, and with Fishman taking Ferguson’s pound and coordinate bilingualism (Osgood, course (101 Introduction to Linguistics), they 1954) led to much research and controversy. became ‘neighbors, colleagues, students (each Based at Berkeley after 1958, her interest in child acknowledging the other as teacher) and close language acquisition cross-culturally brought her friends, roles we have enacted, either repeatedly naturally into sociolinguistics (Ervin-Tripp, 1973). or continuously …’ She also joined the Committee on Sociolinguistics In May 1963, Fishman was not on the original in 1966 (Ervin-Tripp, 1997). list of scholars to be invited to Bloomington, The task I have been set in this chapter is made which included Gumperz, Haugen, Immanuel more complex by the need to distinguish individ- Wallerstein9 or Paul Friedrich, Steven E. Deutsch10 ual contributions from joint work and both from and Dell Hymes. In December, William Labov the working of the Zeitgeist,5 the difficult to docu- and William Stewart,11 both about to finish their ment formation of a consensus on next steps in a degrees, were added; a month later, Fishman was scientific field. All of the scholars I have named also invited (as were Heinz Kloss12 and Basil were already actively engaged in what is now Bernstein, all three considered sociologists rather describable as sociolinguistic research and publi- than linguists) (Committee on Sociolinguistics cation before 1964. Shuy (1997) notes that 1963–). Fishman had not been sure that he would Fishman first taught a course called ‘Sociology of be included – his only relevant publication was an Language’ at the University of Pennsylvania in article on the Whorfian hypothesis (Fishman, 1956 and continued to teach it at Yeshiva 1960), although he had earlier published articles University. Huebner (1996) that the term ‘socio- on Yiddish bilingualism, pluralism and minorities, linguistics’ was first used by Currie (1952) and and was just finishing his first major opus picked up by Weinreich (U. Weinreich 1953a: 99) (Fishman, 1966) which was to set the path for the and in articles in Word which Weinreich edited.6 host of studies of minority language maintenance The classic paper on diglossia (Ferguson, 1959) and loss that now dominate the sociolinguistic appeared there. At the 1962 LSA Linguistic research field. He later (Fishman, 1997a) recalled Institute, Ferguson taught a course with the simple that he was at Stanford rewriting Fishman (1966) title ‘Sociolinguistics’ and repeated it the follow- when he first heard about the 1964 seminar and ing summer and in the 1965 academic year at was encouraged to apply by Einar Haugen, also a Georgetown University. In 1964, Fishman had just fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the completed his pioneering study of language loyalty Behavioral Sciences. He phoned Ferguson whose in the USA (Fishman, 1966).7 Labov had published article on diglossia he knew; Ferguson ‘seemed a his Martha’s Vineyard study (Labov, 1962) and little cool on the phone’ but accepted the appli- was completing the New York dissertation cation. Ferguson quickly came to appreciate 55434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd434-Wodak-Chap-01.indd 4 33/18/2010/18/2010 33:52:15:52:15 PPMM FISHMAN, FERGUSON: THE SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE 5 Fishman’s potential contribution: in a letter written 1.3 ORGANIZING A NEW FIELD in 1965 trying unsuccessfully to persuade Fishman to stay on the Committee of Sociolinguistics, he Left to work alone, there is little doubt that the wrote, ‘Of all the members, you are most probably founders of sociolinguistics would have continued the only one whose primary interest is in the field their individual scholarly paths investigating the of sociolinguistics, and your publications in the complex relations between language and society, field have been the most extensive. You are con- and the structure and interplay of the two systems cerned with both “macro” and “micro” and with evolved to deal with the evolutionary inadequacies relating the two’ (Committee on Sociolinguistics of human physiology, rejecting the ideology estab- 1963–) (letter from Ferguson in Ethiopia dated lished in mainstream linguistics by Chomsky’s 25 November 1965). lack of interest in meaning and his focus on the Fishman did not know what the seminar was competence of an ‘idealized monolingual’. Each going to be like, but he was willing to put up with of them had come with a different goal and was a hot uncomfortable summer in Bloomington in attracted by a different inspiration.