Discussion about Two Elements of Speech Community:Territory and Population

Abstract：Speech community is one of the most fundamental and significant issues in Sociolinguistics， which is the prior object and essential unit of study. Study of speech community stems from recognition of heterogeneity language. In this article， there are introductions to its background about the view of language， origin， and previous views on it. Discussion on some of the five elements of speech community are involved. Definition of territory may be expended to a communication place rather than confined to a concrete place. The element of population may not only refer to group of people living in a fixed place but fluent population which keeps a dynamic stability. Further researched are needed on both of the elements.

Key words：Speech Community; Territory; Population

中圖分類號：H0-05? ? ? ? ?文獻標識碼：A? ? ? ? ? ? 文章編號：1672-1578（2019）07-0001-03

1? ?Background

Language is variable， which is one of essential characteristics of language， and one of the basic notions in Sociolinguistics. Nonetheless， this trait was not paid enough attention in the academic mainstream in the beginning of modern linguistics development.F. de Saussure， the Father of Modern Linguistics deemed the homogeneity as the nature of language：While language in general is heterogeneous， a language system is homogeneous in nature（Saussure，2001：14）.

As distinction between Langue and Parole made， the heterogeneous part of language， as individual representation of language， is attributed to Parole. Thus there is nothing collective about speech.

Its manifestations are individual and ephemeral.It is no more than an aggregate of particular cases（Saussure，2001：19）.In the meanwhile，the homogeneity of language attributed to Langue， is the linguistic study object. It（langue） is something which is in each individual， but is none the less common to all. At the same time， it is out of the reach of any deliberate interference by individuals（Saussure，2001：19）.

Structuralism looked down upon heterogeneity as individual representation of language. The following of Transformational-Generative Grammar went along with it likewise. Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener， in an completely homogeneous speech-community， who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations， distractions， shifts of attention and interests， and errors（random or characteristic） in applying its knowledge of the language in actual performance（Chomsky，1969：3）. Language change can be generated by language itself， psychological and physical factors of speaker， and socio-cultural background of language.TG Grammar ruled out language materials affected by extralinguistic factors，and merely put emphasis on the pure linguistic materials， i. e. grammatically relevant linguistic facts.

It cannot be denied that both Structuralism and TG Grammar impacted positively on modern linguistic development in which language structure is described clearly and systemically comparatively. Nevertheless， a good deal of language facts was still not explained explicitly and their problems came out themselves. It was too difficult to find out those pure linguistic materials which did not exist in real language use. Neither is it with an ideal speaker-listener.

And these problems are the main targets of Sociolinguistics.Variability and superficial disorder are displayed by real language use. However， some patterns of language use in relation to social factors are lurked. And that is what Sociolinguists commit themselves to.

There is a great amount of language materials that it is unfeasible to conduct a concrete research on all of them. Therefore， it is practical to define a specific scope for a concrete research. Speech community， with its rough definition of a group of people within a specific range， meets the demand of research.

2? ?Previous Study on Speech Community

Speech community is one of the most fundamental and significant issues in Sociolinguistics， which is the prior object and essential unit of study.It is too fuzzy that speech community is defined as “a group of people within a specific range”. There are continuous discussions on its definition from different perspectives. The idea of speech community in its early stage refers to a group speaking the same language. Lyons defined it as “all the people who use a given language （or dialect）” （Lyons， 1970：326）. Essentially such definition in this stage is in accordance with language. Whereas proper “the same language” is nonexistent that a persons speech does not go the whole way with the others. Furthermore， speech community plays the role to set a research range to language variation. Thus such definition on it is trapped in cycle that language and speech community are used to define mutually.

The linguist jumping out of the loop in the early stage is Bloomfield. A speech community is a group of people who interact by means of speech （Bloomfield，2002：42）. He underlined that speech community is on the strength of frequent interaction among its members ratherthan language alone.Hockett also approved of the significance of interaction. In his view， it cannot be regarded as a speech community without interaction even if speaking same language. Gumperz points out that speech interaction is the premise of speech community formation in that social groups aggregate by means of interaction.In addition， he deems that communication norms instead of language unification forms consistency of speech community. Hymes， American expert on folklore， negates language conclusiveness to it. In the meanwhile， he draws on some research results of sociology to define it.

Study on speech community steps into a new stage after completion of New York investigation and the following research on language change and variation of urban community by William Labov. He deems that unification of speech act and shared evaluation mechanism are the points of speech community. Xu Daming proposes five elements of speech community based on sociological idea of community which include population， territory， interaction，identification and institution. Zhou Mingqiang（2007：63） sticks to the five elements of Xu in his article. Wang lin and?Xu Daming（2009：21） put emphasis on the role of identification in the authentication of speech community.

3? ?Thinking about Two Elements of Speech Community

The notion of community in Sociology contains factors as followed：a crowd of people within certain limits，long-term interaction kept among those people，and a sort of psychological identification among them. Other than these three factors， same life style and public institution are involved （Xu Xiaojun，2000）.Xu Daming considers that those five factors are mapped into language group. Thus five elements of speech community， population， territory， interaction， recognition and institution come out. Some of these elements are discussed in this section.

3.1 Territory

Territory of Sociology refers to a place situated in a given geographical area. Then the definition of territory of speech community follows. In Labovs study on New York residents pronunciation， territory is primarily designated as New York city as geographical area（Labov，1966）.In Hefeis science island research， the speech community is explicitly defined as an island far from downtown of Hefei， with permanent population of 6000（Wang Ling， Xu Daming，2009）.Those two researches demonstrate that speech community has boundary since one of its element of territory delimits it. Previous researches on it reflect a connection between it and territory.

Nevertheless，the speech community is demonstrated as a spiritual-emotional one without concrete geographical boundary in Xia Lis research on speech community of rural migrant workers in Beijing. For the sake of economic development， scores of rural migrant workers enter cities to seek living. Those workers from all over the country compose a special speech community of which members with different dialects and same experience of learning mandarin， share norms of speech act and attitude. Xia Lis research indicates that tie between speech community and geographical area is reduced. Thus， territorys meaning in Sociolinguistics may not refer to a fixed place.

Communication can be realized not only in geographical areas，but also virtual space. Benefiting from the rise of science and technology， Internet breaks communicative barriers brought by geographic location diversity， and provides a convenient method of contact. In Zhang Weis study， Chinese cyber language is defined as a social dialect（Zhang Wei， 2009： 25）. Young people under 30， most of whom are students in middle schools and universities， are its main users. Sufficient interaction between those young people is the premise of social dialects production and transmission. Cyber citizens accept and utilize such dialect， even take to participate in its continuous creation. In Zhou Mingqiangs research， network community is a virtual speech community in that its users have shared knowledge and ability for cyber communication， identification and compliance with communicative norms（Zhou Mingqiang， 2007：59-63）. It seems network community is a speech community indeed but more researches on it are needed. There is still not more direct research on it.

Previous researches on speech community show an interrelation between it and geographical area since it references the Sociological notion of community. However，economic development leads to the regular and seasonal population movement.The migrant population cross geographical boundary to communicate. And research on network community reflects a possibility of cyber speech community without concrete geographical area which needs further investigation. Therefore， the element of territory can not merely be confined to a fixed and concrete place. Based on those researches above， the territory may be abstracted as a communication place.In the meanwhile， more researches on it are needed.

3.2 Population

The element of population may not only refer to group of people living in a fixed place but fluent population. Indeed， population is the basic and necessary factor for it since the existence of speech community cannot be separated from its users. As mentioned before， previous researches on speech community show an interrelation between it and geographical area in that people living in the area usually constitute a speech community. Speech community is inconnection with production and living for the most of time. It is normal for people living in the same place to form one. Whereasthe users of spiritual speech community are migrant workers. Owing to age or physical condition， some of them would not go out to work and stay at home. And the new comers who migrate from their homes to cities， join the migrant workers community to maintain such community. The users in the community are constantly changing while there still exists long enough time?to communicate and form specific norms. Hence， it is sound to speculate that population of speech community can be changing but keep a dynamic stability.

4? ?Conclusion?

In this article， background and previous research on speech community are reviewed. Speech community is on the strength of view of language that language is heterogeneous.Such view of language also supports the necessity of existence of speech community as a basic unit for language heterogeneity research. In its initial research，it is defined by means of language. After continuous discussion on it， the common points rather than the point of same language are discovered. The change of it definition indicates understanding on speech community being gradually deepening. Based on these researches， there are speculations on the element of territory and population. Territory may be abstracted as a communication place. Population of speech community can be fluent but keep a dynamic stability. In the meanwhile， further researches on both of two elements are needed to verify the speculations.

Bibliography：

[1] Bloomfield， L. Language[M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press，2002.

[2] Chomsky，N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M].The MIT Press，1969.

[3] Hockett， Charles F. A Course in Modern Linguistics[M].New York： Macmillan，1958.

[4] Labov，W. The Stratification of English in New York City[J].Washington，DC：Center for Applied Linguistics. 1966.

[5] Lyons，J.New Directions in Linguistics[M]. London： Penguin，1970.

[6] Saussure，F. Course in General Linguistics[M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press，2001.

[7] 付義榮.試論言語社區的界定[J].中國社會語言學，2006.2：150-163.

[8] 王玲，徐大明.合肥科學島言語社區調查[J].語言科學， 2009.38：13-22.

[9] 徐曉軍.論我國社區的階層化趨勢[J].社會科學，2002.2：52-56.

[10] 夏歷.言語社區理論的新思考——以在京農民工言語共同體為例[J].語言教學與研究，2009.5：86-90.

[11] 楊曉黎.關于“言語社區”構成基本要素的思考[J].學術界，2006.5：82-86.

[12] 張薇，王紅旗.網絡語言是一種社會方言[J].濟南大學學報社會科學版，2009.19（1）：25-28.

[13] 周明強.言語社區構成要素的特點和辯證關系[J].浙江教育學院學報，2007.1：59-63.

作者簡介：俞冰潔（1992-），女，江西南昌人，碩士，外國語言學及應用語言學專業16級研究生，主要研究方向為語言學理論與應用。