HymesFunctions

Jan Blommaert

Intellectual powerhouse and empire builderReed, Indiana, Harvard, Berkeley, Pennsylvania, VirginiaLinguistics, anthropology, folklore, educationStudents and colleagues: Bauman, Sherzer, Darnell, Silverstein, Ochs, Irvine, Hornberger, Gumperz, Ervin-Tripp, Goffman, Cicourel, Jakobson, BurkeBut never wrote a synthesis of his theoretical insights1974: Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach1996: Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice

Main concernsUnderstanding the role of language/speech in individual lives and in the lives of collectivesUnderstanding linguistic inequality as a practical and theoretical problemDeveloping a fully social and humanistic theory of language/speechParadigm shift in linguistics: sociolinguisticsExtending anthropological tradition: ethnography

Background 1: linguistics1957: Chomsky Syntactic structuresObject of linguistics: The ideal speaker in a contextless environmentDistinction between Competence (abstract grammatical capacity) and Performance (actualization of competence)Linguistics concerned with Competence: structure, grammarTheoretically elaborate: model of a social-scientific theory

Background 2: AnthropologyBoas-Sapir-Whorf tradition of understanding the place of language in cultureEthnography: comprehensive description of cultural phenomena (incl. Language)Focus on context of cultural phenomenaLanguage structure is related to culture, informs us about culture (or vice versa)Sapir-Whorf thesis: linguistic relativity(different forms can have the same function)

Hymes the anti-ChomskyanResponds to Chomsky from within anthropological paradigmDistinction between STRUCTURE and USEStructure = concern of Chomskyan linguisticsStructure AND use is concern of ethnography of speaking

EoS = continuation of anthropological paradigm in response to ChomskyStudy of language should be study of ALL of language, i.e. also its useIts use is also rule-governed and can be approached theoreticallyIf we do that, we may get a better idea of structure as wellLinguistic relativity was about language structure

Second linguistic relativitySapir-Whorf relativity: different form, same functionIn different cultures, the same things can be achieved with very different linguistic formsHymesian relativity: same form different functionIn different cultures, the same linguistic forms can have very different patterns of use

Hymesian relativity is underlying to Sapir-Whorf relativity because it looks at language from within a wider patternDistinction between language and speechSpeech = totality of (cultural) communicative forms, including language (linguistic patterns)Speech is always repertoireLinguistic forms need to be considered as part of a repertoire of speech formsThe place of linguistic forms in this repertoire needs to be described and understood

So: EoS looks at repertoires of speech forms and determines the place of particular resources within this repertoireThe same linguistic forms can have very different places in the repertoires of different culturesFunction = place within a repertoireDetermining such functions is the essential task of EoS (and has been neglected by linguistics and pre-Hymesian anthropology)

A simple exampleNewspapersCompare newspapers in Belgium with newspapers in Tanzania (typologically very similar)In Belgium: mass media and reflection of public opinionBelgium: very high literacy rate (literacy in standard language is part of most peoples repertoire)Most people (the masses) buy and read newspapersLinguistically homogeneous/centralized: newspapers are in the language of the masses

Tanzania:Very low literacy rate (literacy is not part of most peoples repertoire)Newspapers are in English; does not belong to the repertoire of most peopleMost people who are literate in English are clustered in cities: very small eliteThe language of newspapers in Tanzania occupies a very different place in the repertoires than in Belgium> Newpapers are an urban elite medium in Tanzania

From function to inequalityConcern for repertoire is anthropological or sociologicalForces one to look into the fabric of societiesBecomes a critical social science, because:Repertoires are collections of unevenly distributed resourcesCompare literacy in Belgium and TanzaniaHas an effect on what people can do with speech resourcesSome people have a lot, some a little

Speech resources have (uneven) valueAre organised according to norms and customs that rank resources-in-useThe deployment of resources is a socially evaluated act, which comes with a price (good speakers bad speakers, good language bad language)Communicating well (= normatively) matters, is a problem to people and requires workLanguage as CONSTRAINT, not just opportunity

Norms are social and cultural codes of useOf grammarOf language variety and codeOf style in performaceA competent member of a society can handle the norms, including shifts between themBecause multiple norms are the rule (use of speech is never stable)In multilingual environmentsBut equally in monolingual environments

So we seeA transition from language to resourcesOrdered in repertoiresIn which resources have a placeWhich is organised by sociocultural norms of use and shiftsAnd involves uneven access to different resourcesDue to social and cultural structures (e.g. young children are illiterate)

A whole new vocabulary to talk about communicationNot languages but particular resourcesEveryone is multilingual even when monolingualMeanings are effects of social and cultural factorsDiversity and inequality are essential in understanding the system of speech in society