Language and inequality

By: Ali Mohammed Saleh Al-Hamzi

NIM: 121914253022
1-The Problem: Voice and Mobility
 When we talk about voice and mobility, we concentrate on the power effects
in the field of language in society, that in particular indicates “ inequality”.
 To explain the inequality of language in society (language differences), we
have to define the issue of “voice”.
 The voice is the capacity to accomplish desired functions through language.
 Example: if I want to formulate a polite request, I shall attempt to
make my words come across as a polite request and not as a rude
command; if I want to declare my love to someone, I shall try to
make sure that the object of my love understands it that way.
 when people move through physical and social space, they move through
orders of indexicality affecting their ability to deploy communicative
resources, and what functions well in one such unit may suddenly cease
to function or lose parts of its functions in another such unit.
Consequently, voice in the era of globalisation becomes a matter of the
capacity to accomplish functions of linguistic resources translocally,
 The issue of voice is an social issue, and a linguistic description of
what goes on in the interaction will not suffice to produce an analysis
of voice. It is about function, and function is affected by the social ‘values’
 In general we can say that every difference in language can be turned into
difference in social value -- difference and inequality are two sides of a coin.
2. TOWARDS A THEORY OF VOICE

 The theory of voice indicates the following:

 The role of language may differ from community to community.
 The significance of a language depends not only on structure, but also on
patterns of use.
 The consequences of the relativity of the structure of language depend on the
relativity of the function of language. ( Hymes 1966).
 Hymes also emphasizes that Even if language forms are similar, the way in
which they get inserted in social actions may differ significantly and,
consequently, there may be huge differences in what these similar forms do in
real societies.
 Consequently, as said before, differences in the use of language are quickly,
and quite systematically, translated into inequalities between speakers.
 The fact is that functions performed by particular resources in one place
can be altered in another place, and that in such instances the ‘value’ of
these linguistic tools or skills is changed, often in unpredictable ways. The
English acquired by urban Africans may offer them considerable prestige
and access to middle-class identities in African towns. It may be an
‘expensive’, extremely valuable resource to them. But the same English,
when spoken in London by the same Africans, may become an object of
stigmatisation and may qualify them as member of the lower strata of
society.
 Difference and Value
 When using language, we map form onto function. Function, as said, is
tied to social evaluation of meaningfulness, and this relates to orders of
indexicality emanating from centering institutions -- the inherent
normativity of language use. Function is thus clearly not an ‘essence’, but
a relational, relative phenomenon which depends on the structure and
scope of the repertoires of speakers and their value in relation to orders of
indexicality (Hymes 1966; Silverstein 1998, 2003a). The process of
mapping presupposes and requires the existence of contextualizing
spaces in which particular forms can be attributed meaning.
 Two problems can, and do, frequently occur -- they are to some extent the
core problems of sociolinguistics:
 (i) differential access to forms, to linguistic/communicative resources,
resulting in differential capacities to accomplish certain functions. Think of
absence of access to literacy or to particular types of literacy; absence of
access to particular language varieties, codes, jargons, styles, genres,
resulting in small or truncated repertoires;
 (ii) differential access to contextual spaces, i.e. spaces of meaning-
ratification where specific forms conventionally receive specific functions,
resulting in differential capacity to map forms onto functions, in other
words, in differential capacity to interpret.
 Given the two dynamics of access, to forms and to contextual spaces,
we have defined an axis of inequality. Inequality will occur whenever
pretextual gaps occur: differences between capacity to produce function
and expected or normative function. People enter communication events
with pretextually marked resources and capabilities: resources and
capabilities that have a particular ‘load’, a value in terms of the orders of
indexicality in which they move into. Such pretextualities will condition
what they can accomplish. Whenever the resources people possess do
not match the functions they are supposed to accomplish, they risk being
attributed other functions than the ones projected, intended, or
necessary. Their resources fail to fulfil the required functions; speakers
lose voice. Sometimes, this can amount to a simple and repairable
misunderstanding, at other times however, it can be highly
consequential. And, in the meantime, it may be wise to keep in mind that
many misunderstandings, innocent or not, have their origin in inequality,
not just in difference.