The sociology of language studies society in relation to language,

whereas Sociolinguistics studies language in relation to society. ... In other

words, sociolinguistics studies language and how it varies based on the
user's sociological background, such as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic class.
How is language related to sociology?

The sociology of language is the study of the relationship between language and
society. ... The field begins from the assumption that language is a social value,
and pursues research on language in contact among social groups, especially
phenomena such as language conflict and multilingualism.

Although several “first generation” American sociologists (e.g., Cooley, Mead,

Thomas, Park) explored the role of language in social life, and although a sizable
number of more recent investigators have taken into account the social patterns of
language in the context of varied groups and interpersonal relations,
sociolinguistics has yet to develop as a significant field of sociological research.
The recent emergence of psycholinguistics and ethnolinguistics, and the impressive
growth of linguistics as a scientific discipline together suggest possibilities for
developing the sociological study of language and offer a basis for the useful
exchange of ideas, among scientists concerned with behavior, about the further
study of language as a social phenomenon.

A limited review of the American sociological literature of the last three decades
reveals numerous theoretical essays on the function of language in the formation of
the social self and the general process of human socialization. The formal theories
rely primarily on anthropological and psychological data, sometimes without the
support of critical appraisal of the original research, and often by inference from an
investigation which was designed for an entirely different purpose.

“Some investigators describe the language of a group in order to identify its

norms, predominant modes of behavior, and world views; others consider the
social functions of language in setting the social boundaries between the in-group
and outgroups.”
A substantial number of disparate observations on the character of language used
within particular segments of American society are reported. A cross section of the
sources includes studies of ethnic minorities and their acculturation, interaction of
Negroes and whites with special reference to the symbolic forms of
communication that stem from dominance and subordination, the distinctive modes
of expression within occupational groups or shared by participants in work-related
organizations, the vernacular of deviant groups, the styles of speech in adolescent
cultures, contrasts between rural and urban language patterns, and differentiations
by social classes. Some investigators describe the language of a group in order to
identify its norms, predominant modes of behavior, and world views; others
consider the social functions of language in setting the social boundaries between
the in-group and outgroups. Many newer studies are focused on how the newcomer
learns the rules and his social role in a group.

Concern with language variables pervades sociological research on

communications. A complex of relationships (which ordinarily encompasses the
media of mass culture, informal social networks, leaders in the formation of
opinion, and the lineaments of person-to-person influence inside a community) is
surveyed to trace the flow of selected information, attitudes, and imagery through a
sample population. Field studies examine the ways in which verbal and visual
language actually fit into local sets of values, customs, and traditions, the reasons
for the 29 differential responses of individuals to the projected symbols, and their
consequences—in the market place, the diffusion and adoption of technology,
voting, and other situations.

Partially overlapping such field studies are the current social psychological studies
in depth of facets of personality, language, and social structure. Research in one
specialized field centers on small groups. Elaborate technical schemes have been
imaginatively devised to record in laboratory situations the kinds, incidence, and
degree of verbal interaction and to correlate these with roles, leadership, and
decision making in the observed group. Other studies defy a simple classification,
and can only be illustrated here by mention of a few subjects which are attracting
considerable sociological interest: alienation and the problems of identity, Erving
Goffman’s delineation of “out front” and “backstage” behavior, perceptions of self
vs. other, and role sets.

The sociological literature as a whole reveals but rudimentary concepts for the
analysis of language as a social system, for comparative studies, and for study of
the role of language in a total society. There seems to be fairly widespread
recognition that language is important, but no one has been quite sure what to do
about language as a general social pattern. Sociology contains a rich store of
classifications, terminology, propositions, and concepts applicable to most
dimensions of its universe of study, but it has only scanty and rudimentary ones for
the study of sociolinguistics.
“Most of the books in current use stress, in the words of one, ‘the compelling
nature of language’ for personality organization and culture.”
Two additional assays tend to reinforce these appraisals. First, in Sociological
Abstracts, the most sophisticated theoretical statements on the nature and function
of language in American society are listed, not in the usually meager section
entitled “Sociology of Language and Literature,” but rather (and consonant with
what has been outlined above) in the more conventional areas of sociological
inquiry such as “Interaction within Group Structure,” “Interaction between
Groups,” “Social Stratification,” “Bureaucratic Structures,” “Social Change,” etc.
Second, examination of a cross section of introductory textbooks, to discern what
an undergraduate student might learn about the sociological approach to language,
strengthens the impressions already gained. Most of the books in current use stress,
in the words of one, “the compelling nature of language” for personality
organization and culture; few present a conceptual scheme to help students probe
beneath the surfaces of everyday life in American society or to extend their
understanding of language in different cultures.

What might constitute the reciprocal benefits of collaboration between sociologists

and linguists? “Old hands” in the study of language could aid sociologists by
evaluating some of our relevant studies to suggest how we could build on
them.1 Construction of a full-scale sociological model to delineate the scope and
content of future research would be premature, but sociologists would gain a
measure of sophistication from a critical appraisal of the generalizations in the
sociological literature about structure and functions of language. We need help in
regard to the selection of critical questions, initial hypotheses, and development of
a sociologically meaningful set of terms and categories of data. In turn,
sociologists might contribute methods now available for use in sample surveys and
testing for the significance of differences between sample populations, and
concepts for analyzing social structures and interpersonal behavior in conjunction
with linguistic data.

Cross-cultural research
Cross-cultural sociological research with respect to the non-Western world can be
said to be of three kinds: the study of patterns of social structure and behavior
generic to the intersections of societies; the comparative study of delimited patterns
in a number of different societies; and the study by a foreigner of interrelated
patterns within another society. A modest start on each has been made by a very
few American sociologists; the increase of professional interest and new programs
that support research overseas together assure expansion of all three kinds of
sociological work.

“On the role of language in cross-cultural relations, more folklore and mythology
prevail than solid information and conceptual frameworks.”
The growing interdependence of American and non-Western societies, with its
concomitant movement of persons across cultural boundaries, creates a need for
fundamental knowledge about the nature of the interaction in nascent binational
and multinational communities and other forms of group association.2 On the role
of language in cross-cultural relations, more folklore and mythology prevail than
solid information and conceptual frameworks. The sociology of education might be
advanced by a study of the present fashions in foreign language instruction,
specifically, the assumptions about human learning, beliefs about the manner in
which language knowledge serves to increase intercultural understanding, the
emphasis on the oral versus the written tradition with resulting differences in the
content of what is communicated, and social factors which impede or facilitate the
use of acquired foreign languages. Similarly, current practices in non-Western
societies with regard to the learning and use of English (e.g., the outright rejection
of English by some factions because it has become the mark of the colonial legacy,
and insistence by others on the preservation of English in order to maintain
effective communication in an interdependent world) invite study. The language
patterns generated by continuing association between Americans and other
nationals, as between technical assistants and their counterparts, in an American-
managed firm in an alien country, and in the mixed groupings formed around a
compound, have scarcely been touched by sociologists. In general, far more is
known about the language experience of foreign students in the United States
(some of the studies initiated by the Council’s former Committee on Cross-
Cultural Education are relevant) than of Americans in foreign countries. For
sociology, the evolving commonalities and conflicts involved in such experiences
open a new field for research.3

Because American sociologists concentrated on American society during the years

of the discipline’s rapid development from the 1930s through the 1950s, no
methodology was designed for comparative studies and little attempt was made to
verify cross-culturally the propositions derived from American life. Some pilot
inquiries have been made, and some are now under way.4 Nonetheless, almost
every aspect of language patterns that sociologists have investigated in American
society awaits comparative study in the high civilizations of the non-Western
world.
“Under colonial regimes different native societies were formed into single nations
whose populations became divided into foreign-oriented and tradition-bound
strata.”
In the aftermath of colonialism and the early stage of modernization, the societies
of Asia and Africa have made language a symbol of their unification and of their
inner divisions. Under colonial regimes different native societies were formed into
single nations whose populations became divided into foreign-oriented and
tradition-bound strata; the former typically preferred to speak European languages,
while the latter kept their traditional modes of speech. The legacy of this colonial
heritage intrudes into present-day issues over languages. Sociologists accustomed
to a society that coincides with a nation-state would find in many non-Western
societies unique opportunities to explore the issues originally posed by Park on the
role of language in a society. Much has been written on the impact of language on
the outlook and perception of life situations by the members of a society. The
ongoing introduction of modern science and technology into age-old societies
gives the sociologist a natural laboratory for the study of massive changes in what
Thomas called “the definition of the situation.”

The author is professor of sociology and anthropology at Michigan State University. He

prepared these “Notes” for the Council’s Committee on Sociolinguistics, which was appointed
last June to foster collaboration of linguists and sociologists in a significant field of research in
which the latter thus far have done relatively little systematic work. Members of the committee
are Charles A. Ferguson, Director, Center for Applied Linguistics (chairman); Joseph H.
Greenberg, Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University; Thomas A. Sebeok, Professor of
Linguistics, Indiana University—all sometime members of the Council’s former Committee on
Linguistics and Psychology; Everett C. Hughes, Professor of Sociology, Brandeis University; and
Mr. Useem; staff, Elbridge Sibley. The new committee has drafted plans for a research seminar,
which may be held in the summer of 1964. The “Notes” are published in the hope that
sociologists and other social scientists interested in the committee’s endeavor will communicate
with committee members or with the Council staff.

John Useem (1910–2000) was professor emeritus of sociology at Michigan State University,
where he taught from 1949 until 1981. His research focused on comparative and cross-cultural
studies that he and sociologist Ruth Hill Useem (his long-time partner) conceptualized as “third
culture” communities and networks. He and Ruth conducted fieldwork on the Rosebud
Reservation in South Dakota, and in India and the Philippines over a thirty-year period on a
range of cross-cultural educational issues. Useem also served on various committees and boards
throughout his career, among them the SSRC’s Committee on Sociolinguistics, in which he
served from 1963 until 1967.