Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:48:16.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Social Groups and Relational Networks

from Part I - Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

By
Diana Boxer  and
Florencia Cortés-Conde
Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access

Summary

The early days of sociolinguistic research were dominated by theories of language variation as correlations between linguistic variables and sociolinguistic factors including age, gender, class, and ethnicity, among others. Years later, Milroy and Milroy questioned these categories’ explanatory power, proposing Social Network Theory as superior for the study of social groups and relational networks. The basic unit of analysis was thus transferred from social structures to individual and sociocultural identification. Subsequently, linguists studying identity in groups have resorted to a newer concept, that of Community of Practice (Lave & Wenger 1991; Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 1992; 1999). This shift in focus opened the door to sociopragmatic analysis via the observation of interactions and the strategies by which interactants self-identified. In this chapter we overview the progression of these approaches, concentrating on the present-day view that social groups necessarily entail concepts of identity (personal, social and relational).In so doing, we explore current theories and research in sociopragmatics regarding the connection between social groupings, identity and relational networks.

Keywords

social variablesidentitysocial groupsrelational networkscommunity of practice
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 227 - 246
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association, 9(1), 119–53.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Blattner, G. and Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of language learners’ development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 24–43.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. and De Fina, A. (2015). Chronotopic identities. In De Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D. and Wegner, J., eds., Diversity and Super-diversity: Sociocultural Linguistic Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the Internet: On Sociolinguistics and the Sociological Imagination. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. (2002). Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 150–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxer, D. and Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2004). Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society, 33(4), 469–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, vol. 21. New York: Mouton Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2, 683–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnel-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and Moonwoman, B., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Woman and Language Conference, vol. 2, pp. 80–99.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999). New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2009). Relationship thinking and human pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1), 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F. and Schultz, J. (1982). The Counselor as Gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39(2), 170–210.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123–42.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1971). Language in Social Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., Jupp, T. and Roberts, C. (1979). Crosstalk. Southall, UK: BBC/National Centre for Industrial Language Training.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1973). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D. and Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herring, S. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R. and Gray, J. H., eds., An Approach to Researching Online Behavior: Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 338–76.Google Scholar
Herring, S., Johnson, D. and DiBenedetto, T. (1992). Participation in electronic discourse in a ‘feminist’ field. In Hall, K. et al., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 250–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2006). Doing femininity at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(1), 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs-Huey, L. (1997). Is there an authentic African American speech community? CARLA revisited. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(1), 331–70.Google Scholar
Kirilova, M. and Angouri, J. (2018). You are now one of us – negotiating ‘fitting in’ in the workplace. In Creese, A. and Blackledge, A., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity. London: Routledge, pp. 345–60.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (2016). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (2010). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Locher, M. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. E. and boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–33.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1995). Aptitude from an information-processing perspective. Language Testing, 12(3), 370–87.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Marra, M. (2013). English in the workplace. In Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S., eds., The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Blackwell, pp. 175–92.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1978). Belfast: Change and variation in urban vernacular. In Trudgill, P. et al., eds., Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London: Arnold, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. and Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1995). Aptitude from an information-processing perspective. Language Testing, 12(3), 370–87.Google Scholar
Paolillo, J. C. (2001). Language variation on Internet Relay Chat: A social network approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(2), 180–213.Google Scholar
Ravert, R. (2001). Adolescent chat style. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (2011). Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities. In Wei, Li, ed, The Routledge Applied Linguistics Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (2008). Disciplinary mixing: Types and case. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 525–31.Google Scholar
Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S. and Zayts, O. (2011). Be (com)ing a leader: A case study of co-constructing professional identities at work. In Angouri, J. and Marra, M., eds., Constructing Identities at Work. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–60.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Interactional sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, 4, 307-28.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529–45.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1633–50.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M., Catedral, L., Haider, I., Kaimzad, F., Melgares, J., Mostacero-Pinilla, C., Nelson, J. and Weissman, B. (2018). Uncivil Twitter: A sociopragmatic analysis. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6(1), 26–57.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the twentieth century. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 185–93.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media and Society, 13(5), 788–806.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×