Language and Society

Question: Discuss about the Language and Society. Answer: The aim of the following paper is to make a fruitful analysis and discussion regarding the summary made by Rajend Mesthrie on the theoretical standpoint of Pierre Bourdieu on the theory of power. The main concentration of the paper would be on the point of view shown by theory of language and power by Pierre Bourdieu according to Rajend Mesthrie. However, prior to make in-depth evaluation of Mesthries summary on theory of language and power, the paper would understand and define some key phrases regarding the considered theory of Pierre Bourdieu. At the same time, significant concepts like symbolic power, symbolic domination and habitus would be also taken into consideration. It has been identified that according to Pierre Bourdieu, the economics of linguistic exchange is related with the term of linguistic capital. Linguistic capital is considered as a subtype of the concept of cultural capital, which has a broader grandeur. Therefore, the economics of linguistic exchange is understandably the exchange of the linguistic capital in the linguistic marketplace (Mesthrie, 2009). As per Bourdieus point of view, linguistic capital means different languages as well as varied symbolic values of those individual languages. In terms of economics of linguistic exchange, it needs to be said that standard languages possess relatively more value for having overt prestige in the linguistic market (Mesthrie, 2009). On the other hand, similarly like the standard languages, in the linguistic market, vernaculars also enjoy a same value of prestige. However, coming to the point of Mesthries summary on Bourdieus concept of symbolic power and sociolinguistic, it is to say ini tially that Mesthrie has found out that Bourdieu has researched beyond the apparent discourse analysis in order to address varied concerns regarding modern sociolinguistics (Mesthrie, 2015). Further, as per Mesthrie, Bourdieus view is primarily regarding politics, education, socio-culture and language. However, the interesting fact regarding his view on politics, socio-cultural aspect, education and language play a significant role in offering a potential base for establishing a unified theory of sociolinguistics (Durian, 2011). According to Mesthrie, from Bourdieus point of view linguistic interaction possesses the significant traces of social structure and helps them to be expressed as well as to reproduce. Most interestingly, Mesthrie has highlighted the one of the most significant fact discussed by Bourdieu, which is indicates that the sociolinguistic competence surpasses mere formulations and articulations of competence that is grammar and competence based. Mesthrie has pointed out that as per Bourdieus opinion highly argues the fact that the act of speaking corresponds the performance of passing sentence. As per Mesthries view Bourdies conceptualization is indicati ve of the fact that the effectiveness of the aforementioned performative pronunciation is not directly can be identified within language. According to Bourdie, these performative utterences are more related to and derive from a premise that provides proper meaning to individual pronunciations (Harke et al., 2016). However, it has been identified from Mesthries summary that according to Bourdieus point of view, human individuals are eligible for four kinds of resources, which are economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital (Benson, 2016). On the other hand, it has been also understood from Bourdieus perception that the distribution of human individuals is determined by the amount of capital or resource they possess, the particular composition of the resources or the capitals and their individual flight in the social atmosphere (Jenkins, 2014). Most significantly, Mesthrie has pointed out that the Bourdieus thinking is related with two chief aspects, which are communicative economy and the power of symbol. As per Mesthries understanding, Bourdie regarding his theoretical standpoint of linguistic power had invested all his interest in identifying the elements of linguistic exchange and the amount and type of capital accumulated by the linguistic investment (Mesthrie, 2015). In this context, it is required to mention that the fundamental concept of the symbolic power was first underpinned by Pierre Bourdieu. According to the conceptual view, symbolic power is indicative of the discipline that is utilized against other in order to confirm an individuals particular position in the society. In this respect, it should be accounted also that the Bourdieus conceptualization regarding sociological work is concentrated with two predominant aspects significance of body and the social practices (Wacquant, 2013). It is interesting to denote that in Mesthries summary and account on Bourdieus theory of power, there is the mention of the aforementioned theoretical assumption of Bourdieu. Mesthries point of view on Bourdies theory also has highlighted that Bourdieus theoretical underpinning has been indicative of the fact that particular social relation between the speakers determine individual linguistic interaction. It has been understood well that power is not alwa ys exercised in form of a physical force as most of the time power is transformed into symbolic attire and thereafter it is practiced with the help of symbolic exchanges (Swartz, 2013). The central or most significant part of the social power and its practice is considered by Bourdieu to be the control of symbolic market place. In this respect, one particular term should be evaluated, which is the symbolic domination. The distinct phrase is indicative of a particular procedure through which the ruling or the dominant class impose the norms on the linguistic market integrated by education and high society. It has been understood that according to Bourdieu, the particular power of the dominant class being the chief legitimate competence is considered to be the symbolic domination (Yuval-Davis, 2016). On the other hand, the dominance is considered to be the linguistic power and most significantly the procedure of learning how to make appropriate expression, which would have impressive value in the linguistic market. However, in this forefront, the Bourdieus final conceptualization regarding Habitus should be granted. It has been understood from Bourdieus interpretation that habitus plays the role of a medium between the material condition that is objective and the subjective dimensions of class that is uniformed by social lifestyle as well as class (Gulledge et al., 2014). It is needed to mention here that habitus is an individual procedure that transform the deposition of society into well structured propensities and lasting dispositions. In this respect, it should be considered also that habitus should not be considered as a result made of free will as per the reason that it is not created by structures (Gulledge et al., 2014). It is required to denote here that as per Bourdieus concept, habitus is an interplay that performs between the dispositions and the shape. Here, shape is indicative of the condition that determines the current practice as well as structure. On the other hand, another va riable disposition means the tendency that is formed by past and present consequences. Mesthries final opinion regarding the Bourdieus theory is a worth admit table fact that for having an understanding regarding macro and micro linguistic variation, situation and values, the theoretical underpinning of Bourdieu is highly required (Mesthrie, 2009). Henceforth, from the above discussion and analysis, it has been understood that Bourdieus main concern has been to indicate that symbolic power is the aspect through which exhibition of meaning is constructed. Most significantly, the above discussion has pointed out that every individual in the society is eligible for economic, cultural, social and symbolic capitals. Finally, it is to conclude with the main understanding deduced from the discourse that linguistic capital through which symbolic dominance is established is different languages as well as varied symbolic values of those individual languages. References Benson, R. (2016). Bourdieu, Pierre.The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. Durian, D. (2011). Rajend Mesthrie, Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, William Leap. Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. Pp. xxvi, 500. Pb. $34.95.Language in Society,40(03), 373-377. Gulledge, E. A., Roscoe, P. J., Townley, B. (2014). Acquiring an economic habitus: the role of calculation in learning the rules of the game'. Harker, R., Mahar, C., Wilkes, C. (Eds.). (2016).An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory. Springer. Jenkins, R. (2014).Pierre bourdieu. Routledge. Mesthrie, R. (2009).Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh University Press. Mesthrie, R. (2015). Towards a distributed sociolinguistics of postcolonial multilingual societies.Globalising sociolinguistics: Challenging and expanding theory, 80. Swartz, D. L. (2013).Symbolic power, politics, and intellectuals: The political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press. Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic power and group-making: On Pierre Bourdieus reframing of class.Journal of Classical Sociology,13(2), 274-291. Yuval-Davis, N. (2016). Power, intersectionality and the politics of belonging. InThe Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development(pp. 367-381). Palgrave Macmillan UK.