CloisterWraith
Evaluate the idea that social influences on language always limits the effectiveness of communication
(30 Marks)
A person’s language has a variety of influences, from societal, to biological, to regional. Despite the fact
that there are certainly some societal influences on language that could limit communicative
effectiveness, it must not be disputed that such influences aren’t the only limiting factor. Moreover, social
influences may in fact enhance communicative effectiveness, rather than limit it- dependent on context.
It is arguable that your social network can play an important role in the way in which one chooses to
speak, and dependent on context, this may limit the effectiveness of communication. This is exemplified
in the study of elaborative and restrictive code, Basil Bernstein who stated that the latter is economical
when there is shared understanding of the discussion. For example, when using restricted code such as
“They’re playing football and he kicks it and it goes through there” to somebody from an external/open
social networks, they will struggle to understand the meaning of your statement as they lack shared
understanding. Therefore, elaborative code would be required in this context to ensure communication is
effective, an example would be “The kids are playing football, one of the boys kicks the ball and it goes
through the window” which gives a lot more detail such as what ‘it’ and ‘there’ are, removing ambiguity.
Whereas, in other contexts, the former statement would be easily understood in a closed network or with
somebody within that context as they have a sense of shared understanding, relative to the context around
them. Therefore, as mentioned in the introduction, social influences may only limit communication
dependent on the context and interlocutor of the original speaker.
This is further reinforced as in some social groups, such as occupational groups, the language used is
likely to be more specialised and focussed- enhancing communication within the group, but possibly
limiting effectiveness to those outside. In discourse communities (a term posed by John Swales), the
language used may include jargon and restricted code. Both of these will provide for effective
communication between those within the group as it is efficient and rich, providing information quickly to
the interlocutor(s). However, if being used by a member of the discourse community to an individual or
group who is/are not, then this can cause confusion and feelings of inferiority and limit communicative
effectiveness due to the lack of understanding between the groups. This is exemplified when a doctor uses
medical jargon such as ‘CBD’ and ‘Agonal’ when conversing with another member of staff, but may
converge with the patient in order to reduce confusion and not limit communicative effectiveness.
Your social group can also play an important role in how language is used and what it’s used for within
groups and between groups. In some social groups, such as Jocks (based upon the study of Penelope
Eckert in Detroit), these tend to use standardised language that is grammatically correct as they seek
popularity over rebellion, such as the ‘Burnouts’ who utilise non-standard ungrammatical structures and
seek to distinguish themselves from the norms of society. Both social groups choose to use such linguistic
features in order to create an identity for themselves, and thus these norms are reinforced within the
groups. Internally, it is likely to enhance communication ability as members will understand each other-
creating in-group pride - whereas externally, if the interlocutor is not a member, the language used is
likely to limit the ability to converse properly as they will struggle to understand what’s being said. Other
