Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Historical Sociolinguistic Philology – a New Hybrid Discipline, its Interests, and its Scope

Barbara Soukup
Published Online: 2017-12-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0034

Abstract

This contribution presents the basic rationale and principles of a new hybrid discipline of historical sociolinguistic philology, or the sociolinguistically informed study of ancient texts, as showcased in the current special issue. It is shown how an interactional model of communication validates and scaffolds the application of synchronic sociocultural linguistic theory and findings to the analysis of ancient texts in order to achieve a more fully contextualized account and interpretation of their meaning from a perspective contemporary to their origination. In fact, it is argued that any study of ancient texts should take the perspective of its producer(s) and addressee(s) into consideration, and that written language use cannot be satisfactorily accounted for without reference to the immediate, on-the-ground-level social context and situation within which it arose.

Keywords: Historical sociolinguistics; sociocultural linguistics; interaction; language variation; theory; contextualization

References

  • Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986 [1952-53]. The problem of speech genres. In Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays, transl. by Vern W. McGee, 60-102. Austin: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2008. All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 401-431.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Erickson, Frederick. 1982. Money tree, lasagna bush, salt and pepper: Social construction of topical cohesion in a conversation among Italian-Americans. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 43-70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Erickson, Frederick. 1986. Listening and speaking. In Deborah Tannen & James E. Alatis (eds.), Languages and linguistics, 294-319. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1983. The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review 48(1). 1-17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gumperz, John J. 2001. Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 215-228. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. & J. Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.). 2012. The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 35-71. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Nevalainen, Terttu. 2015. What are historical sociolinguistics? Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1(2). 243-269.Google Scholar

  • Reichl, Susanne. 2009. Cognitive principles, critical practice: Reading literature at university. Göttingen: V&R unipress.Google Scholar

  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Schilling, Natalie. 2013. Investigating stylistic variation. In J.K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 2nd edition, 325-349. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Soukup, Barbara. 2009. Dialect use as interaction strategy: A sociolinguistic study of contextualization, speech perception, and language attitudes in Austria. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar

  • Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tannen, Deborah. 2004. Interactional sociolinguistics/Interaktionale Soziolinguistik. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics/ Soziolinguistik, 2nd edn., 76-88. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95-188. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-11-07

Accepted: 2017-12-01

Published Online: 2017-12-29

Published in Print: 2017-12-20


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 673–678, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0034.

Export Citation

© 2018. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in