Introduction

Speakers and communities are inseparable just as language and culture. Now, in this setup an individual and his characteristics of life has always been a major concern of sociologists and sociolinguistics. When we talk about communities and its speakers at worldwide level; no doubt that an individual, here also has some distinguish status. It was one of the important issues that were much debated by Dell Hymes, John Gumperz, William Labov and others. However, it is necessary to know about the relationship between both and how they work? Conformity and Individualism A society consists of individuals. Feagin (2002 as cited in Coupland, p. 1) stated that entering the community as the basic empirical procedure in sociolinguistic research. According to Hudson (1996) both sociologists and sociolinguistics would agreed that a society cannot exist without individuals rather individuals are center of interest of a society. In sociolinguistics, individuals are given importance but it is essential to know that why? We can be sure that no two speakers have the same language and the same experience of language. Furthermore, there always remains an element of difference between them because of the universal characteristics of a language and much more because of s/he experiences. On the other hand, one thing which is very much important to know is that how does s/he gets this uniqueness? Hudson stated that it does happen because of unconscious mental map of the community and multi-dimensional space like linguistic differences, linguistics parameters and variables of other types

( p. 11). So, people with different sociolinguistics backgrounds will be led to construct correspondingly different maps relevant to language and society (Hudson, p.11). However, s/he is not simply a social automation and nor is the map of itself rather individuals filter their experience of new situations through their existing map (Hudson, p. 11) where language plays an important part to recognize the individuals because according to Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985), each utterances of speech of an individual can be seen as an ACT OF IDENTITY. Here, it is also important to point out that amount of similarity normally found between speakers goes well beyond what is needed for efficient communication. That is why, in the views of Hudson (1996) the two forces individual differences and similarities between them may be referred to for convenience as INDIVIDUALSIM and CONFIRMITY along with some unexpected areas of our linguistic behavior like swearing and shit & blood etc. The same two things in the form of FOCUSSING and DIFFUSION was being recommended by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) where focusing stands for high degree of contact among speakers and diffusion where neither of these conditions holds, an extreme example being Ronmany, the gipsy language (Hudson, p. 13). The Sociolinguistic Development of the Child In the view of Hudson (1996) each speaker has distinct knowledge of language and on this foundation develops a unique grammar, however it might be possible that people got their sociolinguistics development because of a number of generalizations. Firstly, it concerns with linguistic models which the child follows. For many children, the pattern is

as following: first parents, then peers (distinguish between childhood and adolescence) and then adults. Childhood and adolescence are further divided into four kinds in which childhood leads to what is called AGE GRADING (Hockett 1950 as cited in Hudson, p. 15). Two other facts about this stage are important; the preference given to members of their own sex and to recognize the social significance of different linguistic norms (Hudson, p. 15) whereas, adolescence unlike other children intend to be diverse from all previous adolescent. At the stage of adulthood, they tender challenging modes which we may either keep away from or copy. A much more work is required here however by now we are all more or less secure ourselves linguistically, with a personal language. How children adapt to the very varied linguistic world into which they are born When we talk about social significance of different speeches, we find social differences between them in the age of 3 years even like the example of bilingual environment where two separate language systems were being used and its affects. Awareness of the positive and negative prejudices and their adaptability among the children We find sketchy and contradictory position here. It is proposed that in this stage three years child do not get awareness about such prejudices but have adopted them themselves and it happens because the process ever stop completely. Childrens own speech and its developing relation to the social environment According to Hudson (1996) different studies on the topic show that children from particularly early age get used to their speech to its social context moreover in the first

year, before the children have learnt any of adult forms- they use different noises for different purposes. At the age of three years childrens parents try to avoid the bilingual and try to adopt the situation of their childrens choice. Conclusion The whole discussion on speakers and communities shows that both cannot be taken as a separate identity also mentioned by Hudson (2011) and an individuals individuality has great importance among speakers and communities in all his/he domains. Eckert (2011 p. 2) stated that explanation for broad patterns is to be found in speakers
experience, understanding, and linguistic development as they engage in life as members of important overarching categories.

References Coupland, N. (2011). The authentic speaker and the speech community. In Carmen Llamas and Dominic Watt (eds.) (2010) Language and Identities. Edinburgh University Press. pp.99-112. Retrieved from http://www.cf.ac.uk.10/05/2013 Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics, Cambridge University Press. Suggested Reading Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of Practice, Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/eckert2006.pdf. 10/05/2013. Hudson, Richard A. (1980a). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sperber, Daniel, and Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Starosta, Stanley (1982). Case relations, perspective and patient centrality. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 1-33.

Why Speakers And Communities Are Inseparable?

Submitted To

Pro. Dr. Mr. Asad

Submitted By

Muhammad Imran S-13/3301

1st Semester

LAHORE LEADS UNIVERSITY, LAHORE.