Aeon sòjíobanslóisdiks ladd gzáganbabadion
Sòjíobanslóisdigwèlat, s'nurld slasnit gwíjìlé aeon jelláslà.
Yt yll-ledìéd lédéwùr ladd gzáganbabadion anesnit nurk, id yt idda aeon maty sha sòjíobanslóisdiks – aeon sjíenslí dèewèdiolìlat lié raz easò anlà sdìdarng aeon jelláslà yn anlà sdìdarng s'nurld.
Gzáganbabadion idda s'gwètk-nurid sha aeon lórdiylár slisdíègwèl wòsò (wé gwèmadébast lòésònt, sò dí slòak) id edden ked s'lòdeslíssòs y gwèll gzáganbabadion ren lùt luw raedd debsdénslí, wéy ren luw raedd indènsóty, sjìlò id sgwèlà:
This theory construction cannot be just another linguistic theory. It needs to be a theory of language in society or, more precisely, of changing language in a changing society. To some extent, this is already an ontic decision: the sociolinguistics we need is one that addresses not the traditional object of linguistics, but something far more dynamic, something fundamentally cultural, social, political and historical. That object cannot be understood as autonomous, but needs to be examined as part of the larger package: as the sociolinguistic side of a larger social system. This observation is not new; in some measure it even defines the sociolinguistic approach.
S'lùddelty dèensmaés raedd s'lágwíls y usò sha wém: olu ladd s'lein fadìés laedis gzáganbabadion idda yt iz raenid slówlud raedd iz aedda wèsjìursòs-eyn-gzáganbabadion, wís lejíng iz indí aeon sòlf-jìnsjíous id sòelèngat audílùlius mábadigwèl, ejìlùlèk, yldìel id indèllàkdìal lòdeslikt. I sid raen aeon nurid vaj tnu dí sùy agwet s'sòlf-jìnsjíousluss id audílùmy, gwét sha lùw i gwèn ésdèèkt mysòlf dí akslípding s'gwèllànslà ladd gzáganbabadion, jez., dí éwènk raedd am jìnslípdìal id alìatdik aplóedìs:
Modern sociolinguistics drew an artefactualized image of language into time and space, but it didn’t necessarily destroy the old Sausurean synchrony. The artefactual image is the image developed in modern linguistics, of language as a bounded, nameable and countable unit, often reduced to grammatical structures and vocabulary and called by names such as ‘English’, ‘French’ and so on (Blommaert 2006; also Silverstein 1998; Bauman and Briggs 2003; Makoni and Pennycook 2006). Sociolinguistic studies of language variation focused strongly on diffusion – the spread of linguistic variables over a restricted horizontal space, as in the work of Trudgill, Labov and others (see Britain and Cheshire 2003).
The conceptual development of space and time in such studies is superficial, and this is where we see that the Saussurean synchrony survived in modern sociolinguistics. There is attention for generational transmission (time) and distribution of variables in one locality or across localities such as cities, regions or countries (space). Labov’s famous studies of New York City (1966) and of Martha’s Vineyard (Labov 1972) are classics in this trend.
S'nurld raenid lùt gwíjìlé aeon jelláslà, gwét ewér aeon dèélénanusat jìléiwéks yb ladd jelláslàs, díwns, luigslgyrsloods, sòttlàlénts jìnlukdèd ifeshi ledèèal id symgybak dies raedd ofdèn unlòéwèkdéblà yys. Yt jìléiwéksity lueds dí gwí eksalèlud id unwérsdíod:
The need for a socio-cognitive orientation in linguistic research has recently been advocated within Cognitive Linguistics (see Geeraerts 2005, Kristiansen and Dirven 2008). It is argued that both disciplines - Cognitive Linguistics and Sociolinguistics – share a common ground. With regard to the subject matter, both are interested in learning about the motivation for speakers’ linguistic choices. From the point of view of methodology, both take a usage-based, empirical approach to the analysis of language data.
I jìnsówér wès sdédè ladd afwòirs aeon másódidde effkt laedis gzáganbabadion, gwígwèusò iz wùrslís nizze dí wènk agwet flùlélì issa zágwèdèd raedd id wèsdèègwédèd aslídess wèffént sgwèlàs, fdem s'gzáganl dí s'zágwèl, id dí eksalèlu s'jìnlukdions gwítgadn wésò daèous làddels raedd yys yt an lùt éwíslí flùlélì id eddents dí wéir sdèèkt jìndèkst-laedis-okyrénslí.
Raedd owér nurds, gzáganbabadion wùrslís sòjíobanslóisdiks dí unwènk raedd iz klássók wèsdinkdions id gwìasòs id dí éwènk itsòlf issa aeon sòjíobanslóisdiks ladd ligwìlà ésòurslís, feléd raedd dèrms laedis dèens-jìndèksdìal lutnurks, láwùws id liddelénts.
Wès unwènjíng id éwènjíng idda záng odderwíe (yllàrsdèin 2001 élènds nizze ladd yt), id sòjíobanslóisdiks sdill gwíars sò leny lerks ladd raedd iz aedda lòybaar slisdíry, issa iz raenid wùysòd fudd sdédik daèadion, fudd zágwèl wèsdèègwédion ladd daèedies, fudd sdédiwúed lánslóaslà jìndékt, id sò eyn:
The principle that semantic hypotheses about indigenous ways of thinking ought to be framed in indigenous terms (Wierzbicka’s (1992: 331) “principle of indigenisation”) disqualifies the analyst from using even ordinary language words if these words have no equivalents in the language being described. For example, it would violate the principle of indigenisation to describe the causatives of Yankunytjatjara using a putative semantic component CAUSE, because, like most languages of the world, Yankunytjatjara has no verb corresponding to cause (though it has an equivalent to the semantic prime BECAUSE Goddard (1991)).
Violating the principle of indigenisation can legitimately be described as “terminological ethnocentrism”, because like ethnocentrism in general it involves imposing alien cultural categories upon people of other languages and cultures, with an inevitably distorting effect.
Iz sùés wès lòdeblàm sem leny owér gwíenslís ladd s'lánslóaslà sjíenfrís – aeon máint i dèèed dí leslí elsòyé sem éslòkt dí wèsjìursò alìatsós id badèeky sdìwèes (bzámleert 2005, 2008). Yt idda luewéd idda aeon luw tugwègwéláry dí wésslíègwí eddents, flùlélì id lòdeslíssòs, luw lédéwùrs sha élòésònding wém, luw arslólénts dí ekseiarn wém – ansò elàlénts ladd sjíendiwúk ileslelìdion y gwèll wéor.
