Ideological aspects that exist and bring about linguistic differentiation
Language and ideology and linguistic differentiation is a study done by Judith T. Irvine and Susan Gal. The study by the two authors puts focus on the ideological aspects that exist and bring about linguistic differentiation. The two cite instances from political conflicts and the European colonization to African and the political situations of other regions to try and demonstrate ideological aspects of language differentiation. Thus with this in mind, observers can understand and analyze the different language variations that occur within specific regions. The two authors outline three key semiotic processes applied to understand the linguistic differentiation and how the semiotic processes can bring more understanding into sociolinguistic complexity. The processes they outline are iconization, reclusivity, and erasure. Understanding the study’s sociolinguistic complexity can be applied to rationalize, interpret, and locate linguistic differences and establish the semiotic process in a draw a map task.
In the ‘Draw a map’ task, participants are given an empty map with geographic boundaries to mark dialect boundaries based on what languages they perceive the people in that area. The draw a map task allows sociolinguists to observe how normal respondents view differentiation in the language compared to what linguists know. In the case of our draw a map, the participants are given a blank map of the US with only the normal geographical boundaries marked. The semiotic processes presented by Irvine and Gal can be used to analyze the draw a map task, to paint a picture as to why language is more associated to some areas than others. For instance, in the draw a map task of the US, New Mexico is often overlooked when trying to draw dialect maps of areas. It would seem most people do not associate it with a specific dialect—comparing that to the Midwest, which is usually marked distinctly in a draw a map task. The Midwest has a cultural attachment exclusive to the place, and even speakers from the area tend to have the ‘Texas drawl’ as they speak. Therefore, the areas of Texas are considered a salient cultural place that is so distinct that it usually stands out nationally.
New Mexico is not viewed as a salient cultural area, meaning that it is typically left out of most respondent’s maps. The perceptual Dialectology of new Mexico brings new Mexico back into focus. Participants were given almost blank maps of the New Mexico area to draw a dialect map. The distinct regions are native, Texas, Mexican, Spanish, and finally English. It would seem that a lot of the respondents did not mention the smaller dialects. For instance, native is a general term, but only a small portion of participants mentioned the Apache. The theme is replicated in the texas classification, where despite there being different dialects, the Texas term is used to describe the whole area broadly. Thus, this shows that people have systematically overlooked the dialects’ distinctions despite them still being there.
The finding resonates with that of Irvine and Gal’s study, specifically erasure. If the results are to go by, the subgroups are slowly eroded and might be generalized entirely into just one. The distinct maps also show the presence of distinct cultural areas may be associated with iconization. In the perceptual Dialectology of new Mexico, the participants seem to differentiate some areas based on their salient culture. The native area is associated with the native tribes living there, which is the same in the other differentiation.