The Social Motivations

for Language Use in

Interpersonal Interactions
Desfianur Ardhi
6.1 Introduction
The reason people learn an L2 is
due to the
◦ Instrumental value
◦ Social identity marker
6.1.1 The basis for associated meanings:
Speakers and
communities, not varieties
Varieties
Speakers and communities
6.1.2 Socio-psychological
baggage
alllinguistic varieties carry with
them socio-psychological
baggage.
◦ Speaker and situation
the baggage is almost never
unidimensional.
6.2 Linguistic varieties as
social indices
linguistic choices as indexical
signs
Linguistic interpretations are
the social message
6.3 More than meets
the ear
Beside the meanings, The
linguistic choice contains
message
◦ 6.3.1 Implicational messages
◦ 6.3.2 Cooperation and relevance
 6.3.2.1 Pragmatic implicatures about
referential meanings
 6.3.2.2 Pragmatic implicatures about
socio-psychological meanings
 6.3.1 Implicational
messages
Semantics vs Pragmatics
Pragmatics have premises
◦ There is a gap between decoding
words and sentence structures with
the message.
◦ Inference fills the gap
H. P. Grice
H. P. Grice (1975) coined the
term implicature to refer to
indirect messages
There are 2 types of implicatures
◦ Conventional implicatures
◦ Conversational implicatures
Conventional Implicature
Containsdirect message
Examples
◦ Mark is a master student. Mark is
well educated.
◦ David is deaf. David can’t hear
◦ Bryan Lives in USA. Bryan speaks
English
Conversational
Implicature
Contains indirect message
Needs inference
Example:
◦ Jack : “What class will we have
tommorow morning?”
◦ Nathan : “I hope Mr. Carl will not
attend the class. I haven’t done with
my assignments yet”.
6.3.2. The priciples of
Conversation
Cooperative principle. (H.P.
Grice (1975))
Relevance principle. (Deirdre
wilson (1986/1995))
Cooperative principles
The speakers have to be
cooperative in terms of ;
◦ Being informative
◦ Being truthful
◦ Being relevant
◦ Not being obsecure and ambiguous
 Informative
Inform as many as needed

Ben : Have Ben : Have you

pasted the
you pasted
notice on the
the notice school board?
on the Joe : the
school board was full
and i will need
board?
an approval
Joe : I from the PIC,
 Truthful
Don’t say what you believe is
false
Give evident
Mother : Tom,
Be Mother :
what are you at
Tom, what
the campus now
Tom (in the are you at
internet shop) : the campus
Yes, i’m still now
here
Tom : No.
 Being Relevant
Be Relevant

Maggie : Maggie :
When will Have you
you clean cleaned the
the floor floor
Karen : Karen :
after the
cleaning the aeroplane
 Not being Obscure or
ambiguous
Don’t be ambiguous

Sarah : Could you handle the

students while i left the
class
Jane : the students were so
excited in the class, but they
finally calmed down at the
end
generalized conversational
implicatures
Stephen Levinson (2000)
introduced generalized
conversational implicatures
It is context based
Example:
◦ ‘there’s a taxi at the door (familiar
place)
6.4 Language varieties absorb
meanings from situations

Varieties are allocated according

to the situation
Example:
◦ High Varieties vs Low Varieties
6.5 Speakers have their own
motivations for choices, too
factors influencing interpersonal
interactions and therefore
language choices that speakers
make. (Brown and Gilman, 1960),
◦ Solidarity
◦ Power
◦ Social distance
6.5.1. The dynamic aspect of solidarity and power

Solidarity and power are dynamic

It influences the choices of
Linguistic
Example:
◦ Using more formal varieties for
interracting with the stranger
◦ Using less formal varieties for
interracting a close friend
6.5.2. Using linguistic choices to change
relationships

Non-reciprocal vs reciprocal
relationship
Reprocity Vs Non reprocity in
language use
6.6. Models to Explain
Conversational choices
Matched Guise
Interpretation of Interpersonal
language
◦ Accomodation theory
◦ Markedness model
◦ Conversation Analysis
6.7 What accommodation
means
The speakers show who they are
and their goal
Speakers choose the way they
talk with the listener
It is listener or audience centered
Participants adjust the diction,
accent, and other aspects to the
style of the other participants
6.7.1 In the tradition of
Accommodation Theory
Theoretical framework
◦ “audience design” (Bell, 1984;
2001)
◦ “style as self-identity”.
(Coupland, 2001: 201)
6.7.2 Bakhtin and multiple
voices
the multiplicity of “voices” in
any utterance
the need to pay attention to the
“existence of previous
utterances”
6.7.3 Accommodation between
bilinguals: valued or not
 Maria (German): Und wo kommst du her?
 Kay (American) : Aus Urbana. Urbana
 Maria : die stadt kenme ich nicht
 Kay : Urbana liegt sudlich von chicago.
Right in the middle of the cornfields
 Maria : is it in the middle or in the other
state?
 Kay : in Illinois, in the middle of Illinois.
Und du? Wo kommst du her?
6.7.4 divergence
It is going against the flow
It is concious.
6.8 Markedness Model: Another
model of social motivations
speakers make choices because
of their own goals.
The Markedness Model tries to
establish a principled procedure
that both speakers and listeners
use to judge any linguistic choice
that they might make or hear as
more or less marked,
6.8.1 Unmarked choices
Myers-Scotton (e.g. 1993a) refers
to a Rights and Obligations set
(RO set) as part of the normative
expectations for each interaction
type
Symbolic domination
determines the
unmarkedness
6.8.2 Marked choices
The negotiation about the
speaker’s persona (who the
speaker is) and the speaker’s
relation to other participants.
marked choice is a negotiation
about either the solidarity or the
power dimension (or both).
6.8.3 Making “Rational
Choices”
Deciding the choice that brings
the best outcome
6.8.4 Marked choices in codeswitching

Using two language varieties in

the same conversation.
It can occur between speakers, or
between sentences in the same
speaker’s turn, or within a
sentence.
6.8.4 Marked choices in
codeswitching
Solidarity
Claiming multidimensional
persona
Neutral choice
solidarity
Clerk (Swahili): Ee-sema. 'OK-what do you want?' (lit.:
'speak')
Customer: Nipe fomu ya kuchukua pesa. 'Give me the form
for withdrawing money.'
Clerk: Nipe kitabu kwanza. 'Give me [your] book first.'
(Customer gives him the passbook.)
Customer: Hebu, chukua fomu yangu. 'Say, how about
taking my form.'
Clerk: Bwana, huwezi kutoa pesa leo kwa sababu hujamaliza
siku saba. 'Mister, you can't take out money today because
you haven't yet finished seven days (since the last
withdrawal).'
Customer (switching to Luo): KONYA AN MARACH. 'Help, I'm
in trouble.'
Clerk (also switching to Luo): ANYALO KONY, KIK INUO
KENDO. 'I can help you, but don't repeat it.'
6.8.5 Codeswitching to claim a
multi-dimensional persona
marked choices in code switching
are often used to assert
attributes on the power
dimension, too
6.8.6 Codeswitching as a neutral
choice
codeswitching can be used to
level inequalities between
speakers
6.8.7 Codeswitching and an
unmarked group identity
In some communities,
codeswitching itself is the
unmarked choice.
such codeswitching conveys the
message of dual identities or
memberships in both of the
cultures that the languages
index.
6.8.8 Combining codes to mark a
unique identity
Rampton (1995) has written
about “crossing” as a style of
speaking used by some urban
adolescents in England
6.8.9 Exploiting code switching to
claim an identity
using an unmarked choice for a
certain group group to claim
membership in that group
6.8.10 One person’s unmarked
choice, another’s marked choice
In many interactions in a multi-
ethnic community, someone gets
“left out” when two speakers of
the same language decide to
speak their language exclusively
6.9 Code choices within a Conversation
Analysis
approach
 Conversation Analysis see the social meaning of
bilingual choices as available from an examination of
the linguistic structures.
 Peter Auer makes four main points about the choices
bilinguals make in a bilingual conversation.
◦ CA analysts downplay the role of societal norms regarding
language use and emphasize instead that social meanings
can be “locally produced”.
◦ CA analysts emphasize paying attention to the overall
organization of the discourse, especially sequences of how
codes are alternated
◦ CA analysts in general emphasize that a fine-grained
transcription of any speech event i snecessary to capture
potential nuances in how social meaning is produced
Contrasting Conversation Analysis
and the Markedness Model
A particular language is marked choice
unless the discourse structure of a
specific interaction itself gives evidence
as to the markedness of that choice
 most CA analysts instead emphasize the
“local” construction of meaning
 CA analysts claim that their focus on
discourse structure provides an
interpretation more true to the role of
language in the interaction because it
limits external evidence