By introducing the concept of communicative competence, Hymes (1972) emphasized a need for a broader linguistic theory as opposed to the one that was the predominant theory at the time, i.e. the Chomskyan generative grammar. He criticized different aspects of the linguistic theory put forward by Noam Chomsky, especially the concept of an ideal speaker-listener, the completely homogenous speech community, and the disregarding of any sociocultural factors. Since no linguistic interaction happens in a social vacuum, there are aspects of communication that are not accounted for in generative grammar. Hymes introduces the concept of communicative competence as one that not only includes the grammatical aspects of language but also the underlying rules of language use without having the knowledge of which, one fails to efficiently communicate through language. In other words, Hymes’ view of competence focuses on both grammatical and appropriate speech. This broader linguistic theory of competence can deal with issues such as variation, differential competence, heterogeneous speech communities, etc. Communication calls for much more than knowing only the linguistic code: verbal behavior can vary along social dimensions, and in order to communicate efficiently one should be able to choose, from the list of grammatically correct sentences, those that are indexed to specific situations and are contextually appropriate. The importance of Hymes’ Ethnography of Communication emerges here where language “is not studied in isolation but within a social and/or cultural setting” (Richards & Schmidt, 2013). Studying how social relationships affect the way people in different speech communities communicate with each other helps one better understand the covariation between language and society which could in turn deal with issues such as sociolinguistic interference, a term mentioned in Hymes (1972) on how misunderstandings and misinterpretations may arise due to the differences between different systems, both linguistic and social.
An example of the different systems might be found in Ervin-Tripp’s study (1969) of the sociolinguistic rules of address. In her paper, Ervin-Tripp focuses on how a number of factors (e.g. age, kinship, rank, etc.) are at work in deciding how to address a person in the United States and how violating any of these rules can communicate a specific meaning, as was the case with Dr. Poussaint’s interaction with the policeman. In addition to the American address system, she also introduces the address systems of two-choice system languages (i.e. T vs. V) and points out that in order to appropriately use these two forms of address, one needs to have knowledge of the individuals and contexts. Here, I would like to talk about Farsi as one of the T-V system languages. In Farsi, ‘to’ <تو> (the equivalent of “tu” in French) is used with people whom you know very well and feel close to. On the other hand, ‘shoma’ < شما> (the equivalent of “vous” in French) is used when the two people do not know each other well, when the addressee is considerably older (e.g. older relatives or sometimes parents and older siblings), and when the addressee is of a higher status (e.g. a teacher) and is most often used to show politeness and respect. In intercultural communication, an instance of sociolinguistic interference might happen where non-native speakers might not know all of the applications of ‘shoma’ < شما> and address people they do not know who seem younger than them using ‘to’ <تو> which would communicate an attitude of disrespect. Moreover, there are instances in which a native speaker intentionally violates (flouts) the “تو-شما” rules to achieve a purpose. One such case is when one uses ‘shoma’ addressing somebody that is close to him to create social distance. Another example of sociolinguistic interference when using Farsi by some non-native speaker who does not share the same addressing system is that in Farsi it is typical to use a title with the first name like ‘Taraneh Khanoom’ < ترانه خانم> (meaning Ms. Taraneh) that is while this is not typical in a number of other languages including American English and might be misinterpreted as sarcastic and unnatural. Therefore, that shared knowledge, in addition to knowing the linguistic code is essential for communication, or else, a case of miscommunication might occur. Another example of culture-specific norms can be found in Iranian culture: There is a central cultural concept called “Taarof” which is usually used to show politeness and is more of a ritual. An instance of “Taarof” can be seen in stores when the person wants to pay and the salesperson says ‘Mehman bashid’ < مهمان باشید> which literally means “be our guest” meaning that the person does not have to pay. A non-native speaker who is not familiar with the cultural norms of the speech community and does not have a shared history with members of the speech community might leave the store without paying having the semantic meaning of the utterance in mind. That is while this sentence was uttered only as a linguistic ritual to show politeness and did not literally mean to be a “guest”. This very example underscores the importance of being familiar with the discourse norms of different speech communities if one is to communicate with the members of that community sufficiently well.
The ethnography of communication also deals with the heterogeneity of speech communities. Thinking of speech communities as completely homogenous and not allowing for variation within speech communities, which are the results of the idea of monoligualism as the norm as well as the myth that there is a single ‘correct’ way of speaking, can have serious social consequences especially in the area of education. This, in turn, leads to prescriptivist approaches in education which promote only a single form of language and do not allow for bilingual creativity such as code-switching within the educational setting. A related paper is The logic of Nonstandard English by Labov (1969) in which he attempts to disprove the deficit theory and the theory of verbal deprivation that states that Black children from the ghetto were verbally deprived because they did not receive enough verbal stimulation due to their socioeconomic status. He mentions that this concept “has no basis in social reality” and that these children’s different verbal behavior should be viewed as merely a difference and not a defect. Labov then warns that, given the influence of the teacher’s attitude on the children’s academic success or failure, being labeled as “illogical” on part of the teacher might lead to the students’ failure in school or not being able to realize their full potential. A somehow similar situation happens in Iran, where in some regions of the country Farsi is the second language for the residents: In these areas, children are brought up hearing and speaking only their mother tongue (e.g. Azari, Kurdish, etc.) until they are supposed to start school and enter a classroom in which the instruction is in Farsi (the so-called standard language of the country), and they are expected to do well and if they do not, they might be labeled as unintelligent merely because they cannot communicate in Farsi. This is the area of sociolinguistics: to find the defects in the educational system and language policy and planning and try to modify them.
Ethnography of communication studies language as the way it is used in a particular speech community that have shared knowledge, attitudes, and sociocultural understanding. This speech community is essentially heterogeneous (as opposed to Chomsky’s homogenous speech community) and has structured variation within it. If there is that shared knowledge of appropriate rules of the production and interpretation of linguistic behavior, then even a multilingual community can be considered as one speech community (Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert, & Leap, 2009). Iranians, for example, all share the rules of “Taarof” and will not misinterpret one another’s speech.
As it was mentioned at the beginning of this essay, linguistic competence is part of a broader concept of competence (i.e. communicative competence) that includes both the linguistic knowledge and the ability to use it. In order for a person to communicate, he needs to know the discourse norms and linguistic functions besides knowing the linguistic forms, or else he might end up using his own language’s sociolinguistic rules while focusing on the second/foreign language’s linguistic forms and find himself facing a pragmatic failure as was observed in a number of examples mentioned earlier.
Finally, the study of language in its sociocultural context can account for issues dealing with intercultural communication which not only includes variation across languages but also variations across speech communities. An example of this can be the theory of contrastive rhetoric (Kaplan, 1988). As for Farsi, the concept of paragraphs is not very well-established to the extent that it is in English. Therefore, an Iranian student might write in perfect English but find himself having trouble focusing on one main idea in each paragraph or even when to end a paragraph and start a new one. In an academic setting, this might be interpreted as odd and the student might end up getting a low grade on his paper due to this miscommunication.
In sum, communication is a complex phenomenon and it always happens in a social setting hence making it necessary to study language (which is one mode of communication) in its sociocultural context. In fact, Bernstein (1972) takes the relationship between language and society further by stating that “Because the speech form is initially a function of a given social arrangement, it does not mean that the speech form does not in turn modify or even change that social structure which initially involved the speech form.” (p. 163).