Un acercamiento a la huella impresa en la subjetividad

Ferdinand Tönnies (2002 [1887]) made an important and influential distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, generally translated as ‘community’ and ‘society’. He saw the essential difference as being one of character; Gemeinschaft represents “real and organic life”, while Gesellschaft signifies “imaginary and mechanical structure” present in human existence (Tönnies, 2002 [1887]: 33). In this model, ties within communities are built and maintained on the basis of shared locality, kinship or co-operation towards a common goal (Tönnies, 2002 [1887]: 42). In contrast, the systems of ties in society are more abstract, being established deliberately and with specific intentions (Heberle, 1973: 52).

While discussing the tendency of sociologists and anthropologists to equate community with place, Brunt (2001: 81) states that there are no essential differences between rural and urban societies. The most basic ties people have with each other are still based on “proximity and social contact”, whether they live in a city or a primitive village. These basic ties would seem to correspond with Tönnies’s idea of community. However, Brunt, in common with many social theorists, finds it difficult to identify exactly what a community is due to its

disputed and varying nature. Eriksen (2004: 23) also acknowledges that those in the social sciences commonly use the term ‘society’ but rarely define exactly what they mean by it. He stresses the fact that small-scale societies (or communities) are part of larger-scale social systems and should be considered in this manner. The notion of smaller-scale societies within the context of globalisation is a

current concern for many researchers. Fillitz (2002: 217) considers this notion in relation to the use of comparison in anthropological analysis.

Within the discipline of sociolinguistics, when studying language, similar issues emerge. The delineation of the boundaries of communities being studied is often not discussed as a problem (Milroy & Gordon, 2003: 26). Milroy and Gordon (2003) use the term ‘sampling universe’ to describe the community, society or group in which a researcher is interested and from which they will draw their sample of informants. Labov (2001: 33) feels that the explanation of the language patterns in a community is essential to understanding the linguistic practices of the individual. This bestows further importance on the concept of community within linguistic and social study. A geographical approach to urban communities is taken by Labov (2001) in his Philadelphia Neighborhood Study, using sections of the city associated with particular social classes as his speech communities.

Eckert (2000: 33) believes that what the researcher defines as their speech community is dependent on what they are looking at and why they feel the need to delineate that particular area or set of people. This viewpoint is echoed by Milroy and Gordon’s (2003) concerns regarding speech communities and empirical research.

Madera (1996) also stresses the importance of looking at a range of factors when considering a speech community. These are not merely linguistic, but also “social, cultural and psychological factors that determine the formation, membership,

and survival of speech communities” (Madera, 1996: 174). To an extent, this wider outlook brings together the idea of speech communities as linguistic groups within sociolinguistics and of communities as cultural groups as might be

expected within the social sciences. Hymes (1996: 32) also attempts to resolve the sociolinguistic and social science views by stating that:

[c]learly the boundary (and the internal organization) of a speech community is not a question solely of degree of interaction

among persons…but a question equally of attributed and achieved membership, of identity and identification.

The distinction between community and society, if taken loosely and married with the idea of different levels of society, proves a useful one for this research project. This thesis investigates naming patterns in several groups in Scotland. These groups could all legitimately be defined as communities, though some display more of the characteristics of Gemeinschaft, which could be described as being more collective, than others. The communities all exist within wider social structures. Each community exists within its own region or city which also has links to Scotland as a wider cultural and political body. Scotland itself exists within the wider frameworks of the United Kingdom and the European Union. In the light of globalisation, it could also be considered at a less formal level as being situated within a global context. Each of these different planes may have more or less relevance to the communities. For example, an indigenous community may regard regional identity (e.g. Highland or North-East) as being extremely

important, while most political decisions relevant to them were made at a Scottish level. A regional language, such as Scottish Gaelic, can be vitally

important to the culture of the Western Isles but relatively unimportant

elsewhere. In contrast, an immigrant community coming from elsewhere in the world would be very aware of the global context, with culture, individuals and events in other countries affecting their life and identity as a community. Their use of their native language may also span countries, while they are more likely to speak English in Scotland (cf. Li, 1994). At another level, the UK framework may be of more relevance to the immigrant community, as political decisions

regarding immigration are made at UK, rather than Scottish, governmental level.

2.2.2.1 Social networks

Another way of discussing ties between people, fitting with the ideas of

community and society, is to use social networks. The term ‘social network’ was originally coined in the mid-twentieth century within the field of anthropology, though some would argue that the concept was applied as early as the nineteenth century when the Norwegian scholar Sundt considered people’s social bonds as a way of trying to understand their behaviour (Wiklund, 2002: 55). In 1954, Barnes published an ethnographic study using social networks in a far more concrete way than they had previously been applied (Degenne & Forse, 1999: 57). Bott (2001 [1971]: 59) developed this further in the later 1950s, adapting the terms close-knit and loose-knit as tools to describe network structures. The idea was then adopted within sociology and other social sciences, gaining further refinement as it was applied to new situations.

The concept is important within sociolinguistic theory as it provides a means for accounting for linguistic norms within communities. It considers the social ties individuals have with each other and how these ties affect the language that they use. Even as early as 1905, in his research on linguistic variation in the Swiss village of Charmey, Gauchat used factors in his analysis such as age, gender and social circumstances, as well as network variables such as exposure to other dialects or standard French (Chambers, 2003: 76; Labov, 1978 [1972]: 301).

Hymes (1968: 37) described a speech network (rather than ‘social’ network) as “the particular linkages of communication actively participated in by a person or group.” Later, Labov (1972: 807) used a concept of social networks (though not overtly) by analysing the speech of Harlem adolescents by a local social grouping, or gang, rather than by a more abstract social grouping, such as class. Blom and Gumperz (1986 [1972]) also showed an awareness of the importance of social networks to language by recording gatherings of self-selected, rather than randomly chosen, social groups. They explain that this “insures that the groups are defined by locally recognized relationships and enables the investigator to predict the norms relevant to the interaction.” (Blom & Gumperz, 1986 [1972]: 426).

Milroy (1980) introduced the theory of social networks from social science to linguistic study. Milroy and Milroy’s (1978; Milroy, 1980) Belfast study used ethnographic methods to extract linguistic information and to relate linguistic variation to society. The researcher was introduced as “a friend of a friend” to the

local informants so that they were at ease and spoke informally (Milroy, 1980: 44). The use of ethnographic research methods and social network analysis led to a far greater degree of focus on the individual than was possible with most

earlier, macro-level models. This meant that as well as looking at variation as an abstract linguistic concept within society, it could be traced and hypotheses made as to why this variation existed on an individual and community level.

An individual’s social network can be simply defined as “the sum of relationships which he or she has contracted with others” (Milroy, 1987: 105). As with social scientists, Milroy distinguished between close-knit and loose-knit networks, but used the idea of density to allow a continuum between these extremes. The kinds of relationships that people have with each other are relevant to social network models. In a dense network, particularly within a localised socially homogeneous community, people may know each other in more than one capacity (e.g. a

relation, a friend, and a neighbour). However, networks can be spread over a wide geographical area (Milroy & Li, 1995: 138).

Chambers (2003: 75) and Milroy (1980) believe that the social function of a network is to enforce norms. Evidence for the social policing of norms can be seen by the ridiculing of young working-class males by their peers for attempting to use middle-class linguistic forms (Milroy & Milroy, 1992: 4). Smith (2002) links social networks to communicative competence. This also supports Chambers’ argument at a theoretical level, in that the use of linguistic norms shows communicative competence within the community, so the more ingrained

an individual is into the social network, the more vernacular use of language would be expected.

Social networks, then, are norm-enforcers. This notion has remained at the centre of social network theory.

Many diverse studies utilising a social network model have been undertaken. These include large-scale studies such as Labov’s (2001) research in Philadelphia; smaller-scale studies (e.g. Wiklund, 2002); rural, rather than the more

established urban, studies (e.g. Lippi-Green, 1989); research into language maintenance and shift (e.g. Hulsen et al., 2002; Stoessel, 2002; Raschka et al., 2002; Milroy & Li, 1995); and research into historical sociolinguistics,

particularly with respect to language shift (e.g. Penny, 1992; Nevalainen, 2000).

Though the collection and elicitation of speech data and the identification of social groupings is largely qualitative, the analysis uses quantitative methods. A social networks model could be applied in a limited way to the study of naming practices. The use of names could be traced through use of social networks. This would be particularly useful in an urban environment, for example to establish the members of an ethnic community who participate in a dense and multiplex network. This examination of membership could be utilised in the study of the names themselves, as there may be variation in who has these names and who uses them, particularly with reference to core and peripheral members of the network or within certain clusters. There could also be some kind of link between

the nature of a network and its naming patterns, as for instance the participants in a dense and multiplex network may be more predisposed towards unofficial naming as a sign of solidarity.

Using unofficial names, defined here as names other than those on an

individual’s birth certificate (such as nicknames and bynames), is very much an interpersonal act, requiring prior knowledge of the naming community. Dorian (1970: 305) describes how outsiders can cause offence by using what they think is a semantically empty name. However, the offensive nature of the name can lie beyond the mere lexical meaning (or lack of meaning) of the word and rest with the connotations which the name arouses. Kehl (1971: 150) indicates that “gossip groups and networks parallel nicknaming groups and networks”. This places unofficial naming very firmly within the cultural and linguistic practices of a community.

There may be problems with this theory, however, as a connection between

unofficial naming and social networks is, as yet, untested within sociolinguistics.

The descriptions of the density of social ties within a community have been adopted for this study. However, this is not a quantitative description based on the mathematical analysis of individuals’ relationships with others in the community. This is based on ethnographic observation as to whether a

community is close-knit (has dense, close network ties) or loose-knit (has sparse, weak network ties). As close-knit networks are considered to be norm enforcers,

this could be relevant to the maintenance of naming practices alongside other cultural norms.