Ірина Свідер
(Кам’янець-Подільський національний університет імені Івана Огієнка)
THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION
It is necessary to know how the speakers of a particular language in a particular community organize their social relationships. The approach to the sociolinguistics of language in which the use of language in general is related to social and cultural values is called the ethnography of speaking, or generally well known as the ethnography of communication [2, p. 39]. The ethnography of communication is not simply a study of language structure or grammar. It discovers how the speakers use utterances and with what purpose – whether to show deference, to make someone do something, to display verbal skill or to give someone else information which is considered simply outside the concerns of linguistic theory. Therefore, the ethnography of communication seeks to account not merely for what it can be said but for when, where, by whom, to whom, in what manner, and in what particular circumstances. Since, the ways or rules of speaking can vary from one culture to another.
Being a founder of the concept of ethnography of communication, Hymes lists the essential notions of ethnography of speaking which include speech community, speech situation, speech event, and speech act [4].
The concept of speech community needs to be developed because it is the group to which a particular ethnographic description applies. We’ve come across the definition of a speech community as a group of speakers who share a set of norms about the use of a language or languages [1, p. 309]. Meanwhile, Fishman affirms that “A speech community is one, all whose members share at least a single variety and the norms for its appropriate use. A speech community may be as small as single close interaction network, all of whose members regard each other in but a single capacity” [3, p. 22].
From the definitions above, we can consolidate that a speech community is a group of people who share at least a single speech variety and has the same rules for speaking. In addition, Saville-Troike argues that it is not necessary for each speaker to belong to only one speech community or even to two or more completely separate communities. People can be members of several speech communities at the same time if they alter their norms for speech behavior to conform to the appropriate speech community by adding, subtracting and substituting rules of communicative behavior [6]. Basically, a speech community must at least share rules for speaking because members of a speech community may not use the rules of language in the same way.
The speech acts are part of speech events which is in turn, part of speech situations. Hymes [4] defines speech situations as situations associated with (or marked by the absence of) speech. Speech situations are not purely communicative. They may be composed by both communicative and other kinds of events. It means that speech situations may be in the form of nonverbal context. They are not themselves subject to rules of speaking, but can be referred to by rules of speaking as contexts.
Speech events are both communicative and governed by speech rules. They are the largest units for which one can discover linguistic structure. A speech event takes place within a speech situation and is composed of one or more speech acts. It is also possible for a speech event to be the only event in a speech situation.
Speech acts are the minimal components of speech events. A speech act focuses on how to do something by saying a word. It means that the speaker actually does the action through the language and expects that the hearer will recognize his or her communicative intention.
According to Hymes the following aspects are considered to the ethnography of communication study:
S – Setting and scene. The setting refers to the time and place while scene describes the environment of the situation.
P – Participants. This refers to who is involved in the speech including the speaker and the audience.
E – Ends. The purpose and goals of the speech along with any outcomes of the speech.
A – Act Sequence. The order of events that took place during the speech.
K – Key. The overal tone or manner of the speech.
I – Instruments. The form and style of the speech being given.
N – Defines what is socially acceptable at the event.
G – Genre type of speech that is being given.
As we see, for Hymes, discourse cannot be considered separate from the sociological and cultural factors that help shape linguistic form and create meaning [5, p. 35].
Here we can observe a conversation (speaking model) framework, a model socio-linguistic study (represented as a mnemonic) developed by Dell Hymes, that may help us determine how to communicate with people. The way we communicate is based on a number of components and this framework shows us that language and culture are related, and they cannot be separated. Besides, this is also an invaluable tool during foreign language acquisition and is essential for linguistic competence.
To some extent, the examined issue is the missing link between what is usually described in grammars and ethnographies as well. Both grammar and ethnography use speech indications to detect other patterns; neither focuses on its own models. In another way, we don’t know exactly what information about speech, in addition to the rules of grammar and vocabulary, is acquired by the child in the process of its transformation into a full-fledged member of a certain linguistic society. Finally, this is the question of what a foreigner must learn about the speech behavior of this group in order to be able to participate properly and effectively in its actions.
The ethnography of communication deals with situations and practices, models and functions of speaking as a completely independent kind of activity to contribute to profound integration into a foreign society. Taking into consideration that there is a great difference in the way we speak and understand the message, being aware of other people’s norms and putting variety into the conversation is important to maintain positive social interaction.
REFERENCES
- Chaika E. Language: The Social Mirror. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle and Heinle Publishers, 1994. 596 p.
- Fasold R. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. 342 p.
- Fishman J. A. The Sociology of Language. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, 1972. 250 p.
- Hymes D. Foundation in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania, 1974. 250 p.
- Ray M., Biswas C. A study on Ethnography of communication: A discourse analysis with Hymes “speaking model”. Journal of Education and Practice. Vol 2, No 6, 2011. P. 33-40.
- Saville-Troike M. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. 325 p.