CHAPTER 6

Communities of Language Users

Overview of Language and Social Communities

Linguistic anthropologists see a strong connection between social and linguistic communities, suggesting that groups separated socially are likely also marked linguistically, and vice versa. To understand the dynamics of these communities, empirical research is necessary. Concepts such as "speech community" have evolved into terms like "linguistic community," "speech area," and "community of practice." This chapter emphasizes the need to question existing notions and beliefs about language communities.

Defining "Speech Community"

The definition of a "speech community" is complex, as it includes several considerations. First, there is the aspect of size and location—can a speech community be as small as a family or an individual, or as large as a nation? Next is what is shared among the members; must all members speak the same language or dialect fluently, and are language attitudes relevant? Finally, the type of interactions is significant; must members interact face-to-face, or can online communities qualify as well?

Key Considerations

Regarding size and location, the concept can extend beyond physical locations to include virtual spaces, such as online forums, raising questions about what constitutes a speech community. The necessity for uniform language or dialect is debated, with shared attitudes and understandings about language use considered crucial. Additionally, the frequency and context of interactions highlight questions about community membership, recognizing the emergence of virtual communities with different degrees of membership.

Historical Context and Development

Early scholars like de Saussure and Chomsky remarked on the necessity of a language community, primarily focusing on linguistic structures. In the 1960s and 70s, scholars such as Hymes, Gumperz, and Labov introduced socio-linguistic perspectives, with Hymes emphasizing the understanding of speech communities through social rather than just linguistic frameworks. Gumperz further highlighted the dynamic relationship between language use and community interaction.

Recent Approaches to Speech Community

Current research trends reveal that while some scholars adapt or redefine "speech community," others question its overall efficacy. Santa Ana and Parodí proposed a nested model of speech communities, considering social relationships as a primary factor. In a similar vein, Spitulnik analyzed the role of media in forming speech communities that lack a singular common language, particularly emphasizing the impact of radio in maintaining common linguistic knowledge.

Critiques of Speech Community Concept

Bucholtz identifies six inadequacies within the speech community concept, criticizing its overemphasis on language and consensus. Alternative terminologies have emerged, such as "speech areas," seen in Jean Jackson’s work on multilingual communities in the Vaupés territory, where shared communicative practices exist across different languages. Additionally, "speech networks," as emphasized by Lesley Milroy, focus on understanding social ties and structures in language use.

Communities of Practice

The concept of communities of practice, proposed by Lave and Wenger, focuses on the social practices surrounding language use. A community of practice involves mutual engagement in a common endeavor, allowing language to be viewed as a dynamic social practice. This includes criteria such as mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire.

Examples in Practice

Eckert's study of Michigan high school communities showcases class-based divisions in social practices. Meanwhile, Bucholtz critiques student experiences through their self-identification as "nerds" in relation to traditional peer groups, illustrating how identities are crafted through everyday social interactions.

Conclusion

The terms researchers use to define and investigate language communities vary widely, but maintaining clarity in definitions is crucial. Overall, it is essential for research to recognize language as a social practice, acknowledging the complexities of social identity and relationships within various communities.