Sociolinguistics, Power and Identity

Niloofar Haeri

American sociolinguists have been concerned with issues related to power

and identity at least since the 1950s. According to Niloofar Haeri, a
linguist in the Anthropology Department at Johns Hopkins, topics
involving power and identity have long been the object of linguistic
scrutiny. Among others, one may mention the influential work of Charles
Ferguson on diglossia (1959), which touched crucially on the status of
classical or standard languages co-existing in a variety of communities;
and that of Uriel Weinreich on the linguistic and sociolinguistic
consequences of languages in contact (1954). In the 1960s, Joshua
Fishman, William Labov and Dell Hymes pioneered studies which
focused on linguistic variation in relation to a multiplicity of social and
cultural factors. Ethnicity, for example, which plays a central role these
days in discussions of identity, was the focus of Labov's 1966 study of
New York City English among Italian, Jewish, Irish and Black Americans,
and also the topic of Gumperz's extensive work on cross-cultural
(mis)communication. Fishman's research over a forty year career in the
field has addressed ethnicity, language and education, Jewish languages,
and nationalism.

Bilingualism and the relations between standard and non-standard

varieties and dialects, particularly in multi-ethnic societies, have been
technical and quantitative aspects of some sociolinguistic work.
Furthermore, in the U.S., as compared to say France, the division between
"formal" linguists and those who take social context into account to
varying degrees is rather sharp. Here, "formal linguists have been
extremely successful...and they are very intimidating with their
abstractions and theories. They consider other linguists soft -- not real
linguists. Given the dominance of Chomskyan formalists in American
linguistics, some sociolinguists respond to this tension by, on the one hand,
showing their capabilities in their works, and on the other hand, by not
delving too deeply into the social constructs they use to shed light on the
interactions of language, culture, and social structure." Haeri believes that
this division in linguistics echoes various other fields in the U.S. "I do not
know anyone who would be, say, the counterpart of Julia Kristeva in
linguistics here. Chomsky, who is the foremost proponent of formal
linguistics, does spend half of his time on questions of power, politics, and
so on. But the two sides of his intellectual engagement seem never to meet
on the question of language."

Sociolinguistics' lack of engagement with wider theoretical concerns in the

social sciences has now reached a crucial juncture. According to Haeri,
quite a few linguists acknowledge the present lack of direction in the field.
In fact, a number of recent publications on language and gender
specifically address this shortcoming and offer ways of moving further
ahead with this topic. In general, Haeri is optimistic that the field is
becoming more aware of its own shortcomings. Critically engaged
analyses have recently emerged from both within and outside the field.
Several linguists have worked on more integrative analyses which utilize
sociolinguistic methods and techniques, but attend equally to theoretical
issues raised in other fields, such as anthropology and sociology. Among
these Haeri includes the works of Katherine Woolard, Penny Eckert,
Bambi Schiffelin and Judith Irvine. From outside the field, she mentions
the sociological critiques of Pierre Bourdieu and Glyn Williams. She notes,
however, that one is from France, and the other from Wales.