case study in sociolinguistics

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 08 March 2023

Changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistics

• Jiayu Wang 1 ,
• Guangyu Jin 1 , 2 &
• Wenhua Li 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  91 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

7037 Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

This paper traces the changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistics. These perceptions of language are reviewed in terms of language in its verbal forms, and language in vis-à-vis as a multimodal construct. In reviewing these changing perceptions, this paper examines different concepts or approaches in sociolinguistics. By reviewing these trends of thoughts and applications, this article intends to shed light on ontological issues such as what constitutes language, and where its place is in multimodal practices in sociolinguistics. Expanding the ontology of language from verbal resources toward various multimodal constructs has enabled sociolinguists to pursue meaning-making, indexicalities and social variations in its most authentic state. Language in a multimodal construct entails the boundaries and distinctions between various modes, while language as a multimodal construct sees language itself as multimodal; it focuses on the social constructs, social meaning and language as a force in social change rather than the combination or orchestration of various modes in communication. Language as a multimodal construct has become the dominant trend in contemporary sociolinguistic studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Comparing the language style of heads of state in the US, UK, Germany and Switzerland during COVID-19

The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis

How Spanish speakers express norms using generic person markers

Introduction.

This article will review a range of sociolinguistic concepts and their applications in multimodal studies, in relation to how language has been conceptualized in sociolinguistics. While there are reviews of specific areas of research in sociolinguistics, including prosody and sociolinguistic variation (Holliday, 2021 ), language and masculinities (Lawson, 2020 ), and Language change across the lifespan (Sankoff, 2018 ), there have been few reviews works set out to delineate the most fundamental ontological questions in sociolinguistic studies; that is, what is and what constitutes language? How do sociolinguists perceive language in relation to other semiotic resources that are part and parcel of social meaning-making and social interaction? Relevant discussions are scattered in passing mainly in the introductory sections of various sociolinguistic works, such as Blommaert ( 1999 ), García and Li ( 2014 ) and Makoni and Pennycook ( 2005 ). However, there have not been review articles systematically dealing with the changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistic studies.

These issues are worthwhile to pursue in the sense that though sociolinguistics studies language, yet no reviews were done regarding what on earth constitutes language, especially in relation to a wider range of semiotic resources. What even makes the review more imperative is that in an increasingly globalized and high-tech world, linguistic practices are complicated by the super-diversity of ethnic fluidity, communications technologies, and globalized cross-cultural art.

Centring on the ontological perception of language in sociolinguistics, this article consists of five sections. After the “Introduction” section, the next section will review traditional (socio)linguistic perceptions of language as written or spoken signs or symbols that people use to communicate or interact with each other. The next section will review representative sociolinguistic approaches that place language in multimodal settings which involve the relationship between language and other semiotic resources. They are categorized as the conceptualizations of “language in multimodal construct” and “language as multimodal construct”. These conceptualizations share the common feature that language is not researched merely in terms of written and spoken signs and symbols, but it is probed (1) in relation to its multimodal contexts and (re)contextualization (regarding language in multimodal construct), (2) in terms of its own materiality and spatiality, and linguistic representations of multimodality, for instance, social (inter)action and “smellscapes” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015a ) which are in turn conflated with linguistic features (regarding language as multimodal construct). The penultimate section and the last section will present a critical reflection and a conclusion of the review, respectively.

Language as written and spoken signs and symbols

What constitutes language(s)? Saussure ( 1916 ) distinguishes between langue and parole. The former refers to the abstract, systematic rules and conventions of the signifying system, while the latter represents language in daily use. Chomsky ( 1965 ) refers to them as competence (corresponding to langue) and performance (corresponding to parole). Chomsky ( 1965 ) assumes that performance is bound up with “grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of this language in actual performance” (Chomsky, 1965 , pp. 3–4). He advocates that the agenda of linguistics should be the study of competence of “an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its (the speech community’s) language perfectly” (in brackets original). His conception of the ideal language rules out the “imperfections” arising from the influences of social or pragmatic dimensions in real language use. This can be seen as the conception of language as innate human competence. By contrast, constructionists have argued that language cannot be separated from the societal and social domain; social reality is constructed through languages (Berger and Luckmann, 1966 ), and linguistics should take social dimensions into account, as shown by Systemic Functional Linguistics developed by Halliday. These approaches to language studies, nevertheless, do not pay much attention to the ontological issues of language or linguistics concerning what constitutes language, whether languages can be separated from each other, and whether there are different conceptions of language(s).

Sociolinguistics, taking as its departure an interdisciplinary attempt to be the sociology regarding linguistic issues or linguistics regarding sociological issues, faces the ambivalent positioning of whether it should be sociologically oriented (that is, more explanatory) or linguistically oriented (that is, more descriptive) (Cameron, 1990 ). Also, there are contentions regarding whether more attention should be paid to epistemically linguistic minutiae (as in conversation analysis or CA), or to the macro-social interpretation of ideology not necessarily dependent on the evident orientation of the participants (as in critical discourse analysis, or CDA), as debated in Blommaert ( 2005 ) and Schegloff ( 1992 , 1998a / 1998b , 1999 ). As such, more sociolinguists than linguists in other disciplines are concerned with the ontology of language regarding its nature and its relation with broader social structures. In other words, such concerns can, firstly, justify the identity of sociolinguistics being either a branch of sociology, or linguistics, or even more broadly, anthropology. They can also delineate the contour of the macro vis-à-vis micro research subjects: are languages seen as separate systems, or inseparable but relatively fixed systems or an integrated construction in relation to their social dimensions of power, ideology and hegemony?

Such ontological concerns are important, because different approaches to research may be engendered accordingly. For instance, variational sociolinguistics is concerned with the linguistic differences within a language (standard language vis-à-vis its variations in dialects) and examines how these differences are linked to social aspects of linguistic practices, such as gender and social status. These differences within a certain category of language may be placed in the changing situations of various language communities or areas (e.g., Labov, 1963 , 1966 ), or in contextualized pragmatic situations (Agha, 2003 ; Eckert, 2008 ). Assumptions of separable or separate languages may be well-encapsulated in the works regarding language ideology and linguistic differentiation, such as the studies by Kroskrity ( 1998 ), Irvine and Gal ( 2000 ), as well as considerable other works on bilingualism or multilingualism. These works treat language as belonging to different standard systems (e.g., English, French, German, and so on) and can be pursued by “enumerating” these categories. In other words, these standard language systems are seen as having clear boundaries between them, and language can be researched by attributing different linguistic resources to (one of) these systems. The stance of the inseparability of language problematizes the enumeration of languages, by discrediting their explanatory potential in linguistic practices. In pedagogical contexts, transnational students are found using language features beyond the boundaries of language systems (Creese and Blackledge, 2010 ; Lewis et al., 2012 ). In the context of youth or urban culture, there are loosely fixed assumptions between language and ethnicity (Maher, 2005 ; Woolard, 1999 ). In some globalized contexts, new communications technologies as well as globalization itself are changing the traditional power structure in linguistic practices (Jacquemet, 2005 ; Jørgensen, 2008 ; Jørgensen et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, Makoni and Pennycook ( 2005 ), by advocating the disinvention of languages, problematize the process of “historical amnesia” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 , p. 149) of bi- and multilingualism, and their tradition of enumerating languages which reduces sociolinguistics to at best a “pluralization of monolingualism” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 , p. 148). However, this does mean that languages cannot be probed as standard categories. It holds a more intricate stance: on the one hand, it problematizes the separation of languages, as language is characterized by fluidity in multi-ethnic settings; on the other hand, it assumes the fixity of the relationship between a given (standard) language and its corresponding identity, ethnicity, and other societal factors (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010 ); fluidity and fixity, however, are not binary attributes that exclude each other; they coexist, mutually influence each other in real-life linguistic practices. By the same token, Blackledge and Creese ( 2010 ) and Martin-Jones et al. ( 2012 ) also hold a dynamic view on language and identity: while language functions as “heritage” (see Blackledge and Creese, 2010 , pp. 164–180) and the positioning or maintenance of national identity, the bondage, however, frequently loosens as it is always contested, resisted and “disinvented” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 ). Table 1 illustrates three kinds of sociolinguistic conceptualizations of language.

The above discussion briefly delineates how contemporary sociolinguistic studies attempt to capture the complex ways in which the notion of language is construed, resisted or reinvented in and through practices. Most of these approaches are based on the traditional assumption of language as written signs and symbols in its verbal forms. Other forms of resources are generally seen as contexts where these verbal signs and symbols take place. They are contextual facets that contribute to the ideological and sociological corollary of language use, but they are not seen as ontological components in linguistics. Later developments, which integrate multimodal studies into sociolinguistics, show differing stances regarding the ontology of language, as shown in the next section.

Language in vis-à-vis as multimodal construct

Jewitt ( 2013 , p. 141) defines multimodality as “an inter-disciplinary approach that understands communication and representation to be more than about language”. This should be seen as a definition oriented toward social semiotics, in which different semiotic resources are seen as various modes of representation or communication through semiosis. For a sociolinguistic version of the definition, we prefer to interpret it as language in vis-à-vis as a multimodal construct. By using the word “construct”, we would like to point out that multimodality or multimodal conventions enter into sociolinguistic studies because they are socially constructed; that is, sociolinguists research these multimodal dimensions because they are semiotic resources and practices which are constructed by social subjects with power, manipulation and ideology. They are not neutral resources by which people communicate information or by which the process of meaning-making, or semiosis, is realized. Instead, they are a social construct that constitutes the type of Foucauldian knowledge in which sociological power and ideology lie at the core. In this sense, the notions, frameworks, and approaches that we discuss as follows are socially critical in nature and are predominantly related to socially constructed ideologies such as hegemony, power, and identity. As Makoni and Pennycook ( 2005 ) note, languages are “invented” by the dominant (colonial) groups through classification and naming in history; they are not neutral practices and they are constructed and invested with ideologies, power and inequality. Sociolinguistics thus needs a historically critical perspective. In fact, since its birth, sociolinguistics has been a discipline focusing on language use in relation to socially critical issues, such as gender, race, class and politics. This focus can date back as early as Labov’s ( 1963 , 1966 ) ethnographical research on variations of English on the island of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts and in New York City. The sound change or phonetic features are studied in relation to ethnicity, social stratification and class. Agha ( 2003 ) and Eckert ( 2008 ) also probe the phonetic features or regional change of variations in relation to ethnicity and social and economic status.

In fact, the above-mentioned concerns of sociolinguistics are also consistent with CDA (see Wang and Jin, 2022 ; Wang and Yang, 2022 ), especially multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA), which also contributes to the research trend in terms of language in multimodality. Kress and van Leeuwen ( 1996 ) postulates a set of visual grammar based on systemic functional grammar. Machin ( 2016 ) and Machin and Mayr ( 2012 ) and other scholars have also adopted MCDA in various types of discourse. Semiotic resources other than language are analysed to reveal the social construct of power, ideology, and inequality in relation to verbal resources (Wang, 2014 , 2016a , 2016b ). Language in the multimodal construct in sociolinguistics is quite similar to the social semiotic and critical discourse approach to multimodality: language is seen as one type of resource, amongst other non-language resources (visual, aural, embodied, and spatial) in the meaning-making process. The difference lies in that sociolinguistic approaches toward language in multimodality have much more focus on social interaction, power and ideology and their research frequently includes ethnographical data and observations. Language as a multimodal construct, by contrast, sees language as a more integral part of multimodal resources, and vice versa; less distinct boundaries are seen as existing between languages and non-languages. These two trends of conceptions are discussed below.

Language in multimodal construct

To place language studies in the multimodal construct is not a new practice in sociolinguistics. Agha ( 2003 , p. 29) analyses the Bainbridge cartoon, treating accent not as “object of metasemiotic scrutiny”, but as an integral element in “the social perils of improper demeanour in many sign modalities” such as dress, posture, gait and gesture. His discussion demonstrates how language studies can be embedded in a larger multimodal scope. Language is contextualized by its peripheral multimodal paralinguistic sign systems. In Eckert ( 2008 , p. 25), the process of “bricolage” (Hebdige, 1984 ), in which “individual resources can be interpreted and combined with other resources to construct a more complex meaningful entity”, is linked to the style and language variations which reflect social meaning. She gives examples of how the clothing of students at Palo Alto High School affords them certain types of styles to convey social meaning. Eckert ( 2001 ), Coupland ( 2003 , 2007 ) and other scholars’ research represent the “third-wave” sociolinguistic studies, which see the use of variation in terms of personal and social styles (Eckert, 2012 ). Language and other semiotic resources constitute a stylistic complex that makes social meaning and constructs social styles and identities together. Goodwin ( 2007 ) extensively encompasses multimodal interaction in the examination of participation, stance and affect in a “homework” interaction between a father and his daughter, where gaze, gesture, and the spatial environment are taken into account. Goodwin’s research is partly premised on Bourdieu’s ( 1991 , pp. 81–89) associating bodily hexis with habitus , which is also a notion that is multimodal in itself. The deployment of different bodily modes in different contexts of participation (such as homework, archaeology, and surgery) depends on conventions of various social practices or their respective habitus .

Research regarding language in multimodal construct shares some common ground with the social semiotic approach towards multimodality. First, in communication, there are different modes of resources or semiotic types that convey social meaning and embed ideology. Second, these resources consist of language and “non-language”: the former being written or spoken signs and symbols that social actors use to communicate, and the latter being visual, aural, or embodied ones in that language are situated. Third, meaning-making is done through the orchestration of these resources.

In contrast to social semiotic approaches, with an anthropology-oriented concern, language in the multimodal construct as a sociological and sociolinguistic approach usually bases itself on ethnographical observations of social interaction. Language is seen as a component in social interactional discourse; other semiotic modes or resources are also important resources through which language use is contextualized. To be more specific, language in multimodal construct shows concerns with language as one type of semiotic resource that is placed in multimodal contexts in the following aspects:

First, meaning-making through other resources is seen as “add-ons” to that of language. In other words, language indexes social meaning and ideology in collaboration with other types of resources. An example is Agha’s ( 2003 ) analysis of the Bainbridge cartoon in which clothes, demeanour, and even body shape work in collaboration with accent in conveying register and social status. Second, language as one type of social meaning-making resource can be conceptualized in relation to the meaning-making process of other resources. For example, the process of “bricolage” is probed in relation to variations with their indexed styles and social categorization in terms of “gender and adolescence” (Eckert, 2008 , p. 458). This concept is used to offer clues regarding how “the differential use of variables constituted distinct styles associated with different communities of practice” (Eckert, 2008 , p. 458). Third, language is one of the communicative modes in social interactional discourse. It does not necessarily take the central role, because other types of resources, such as gestures, gaze, and the environment where these actions take place, jointly constitute the social meaning-making process. This can be best encapsulated in Goodwin’s ( 2007 ) analysis of the “homework” interaction between a father and his daughter. In this quite mundane interactional discourse, the father uses different embodied actions to negotiate different moral and affective stances through the “homework interaction” with his daughter. Conversation as a linguistic resource plays a role in the interaction, while embodied actions are key factors in affecting these stances.

Language as a multimodal construct

A slightly different approach to studies of language in multimodal contexts is to view it as a multimodal construct: either in the way that language is considered as autonomously constituting the semiotic texture (e.g., in the art form of the “text art” where text is also seen as picture) or in the way that some traditionally assumed extra-linguistic modes are considered as special forms or dimensions of language. This trend of research includes recent studies on language in space, social interactional multimodal discourse analysis, and new concepts or conceptualizations of language in society, as discussed below.

Language in space: semiotic landscape, place semiotics, and discourse geography

Jaworski and Thurlow ( 2010 ) review the notion of spatialization , that is, the semiotics and discursivity of space (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 ), and the extension of the notion of the linguistic landscape. By so doing, they frame the concept of semiotic landscape as encapsulating how written discourse interacts with other multimodal discursive resources with blurring boundaries in between.

In their opinion, space is “not only physically but also socially constructed, which necessarily shifts absolutist notions of space towards more communicative or discursive conceptualizations” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 7). Sociological research on space thus is more oriented toward spatialization, “the different processes by which space comes to be represented, organized and experienced” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 6). This spatialization—as represented discursively—is intrinsically multimodal:

Echoing the sentiments of Kress and van Leeuwen quoted at the start of this chapter, Markus and Cameron argue that ‘[b]uildings themselves are not representations’ (p. 15), but ways of organizing space for their users; in other words, the way buildings are used and the way people using them relate to one another, is largely dependent on the spoken, written and pictorial texts about these buildings… Architecture and language (spoken and written) may then form an even more complex, multi-layered landscape (or cityscape) combining built environment, writing, images, as well as other semiotic modes, such as speech, music, photography, and movement…(Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , pp. 19–20)

The “spatial turn” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 6) in sociolinguistics thus adds the analytical dimensions of multimodal resources to the traditional concept of the linguistic landscape. Written language itself does convey social meaning and ideologies, while it is situated in materiality (the materials it is written on) and spatiality (the places where it appears). The concept of the semiotic landscape blurs the traditional boundary between language and non-language.

Different from social semiotic approaches towards multimodality, researchers of semiotic landscape pay predominant attention to the “metalinguistic or metadiscursive nature of ideologies” (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010 , p. 11). In Kallen’s words, the concept of semiotic landscape starts from the assumption that “sinage is indexical of more than the ostensive message of the sign”. (Kallen, 2010 , p. 41); signage indexes ideologies that are embedded in, or indicated by, different types of space or spatiality: city centre, tourist places, districts and so on. Less interest is invested in the process of semiosis regarding how different modes of signs are orchestrated to communicate information, which is one of the primary endeavours of social semiotics (Li and Wang, 2022 ; Wang, 2014 , 2019 ; Wang and Li, 2022 ). As such, in ethnographical studies or data analysis, language, materiality, and spatiality are usually seen as interwoven with each other, with no distinct boundaries in between; or at least, boundary-marking is not the primary concern of semiotic landscape.

In the same vein, Scollon and Scollon ( 2003 , p. 2) coin the term “geosemiotics” (or “place semiotics”) which is “the study of the social meaning of signs and discourses and of our actions in the material world”. Their research objects are signs in public places. The conceptual framework of “geosemiotics” sees language as a multimodal construct in terms of the following aspects. First, verbal language is analysed by using social semiotic approaches to visuals. Code preference (regarding which language is seen as “primary” language) shown on signs or buildings is analysed by using Kress and van Leeuwen’s ( 1996 , p. 208) conception of compositional meaning indexed by different positions in pictures. Second, language is seen as multimodal itself. Language on signs or buildings is analysed in terms of the multimodal inscription (see Scollon and Scollon, 2003 , pp. 129–142) that includes fonts, letter form, material quality, layering and state changes. Third, the emplacement (referring to meaning-making through positioning signs in different places) in geosemiotics, similar to Jaworski and Thurlow’s ( 2010 ) approach towards the semiotic landscape, is predominantly concerned with spatiality and metalinguistic or metadiscursive ideology, rather than the interaction and orchestration of different modes (language vis-à-vis non-language) in semiosis.

Similar to the concepts of semiotic landscape and place semiotics, Gu ( 2009 , 2012 ) postulates the framework of four-borne discourse and discourse geography. Based on Blommaert’s ( 2005 , p. 2) view of discourse as “language-in-action”, Gu analyses the language and activities in social actors’ trajectories of time and space in the land-borne situated discourse (LBSD): a type of discourse categorized by Gu ( 2009 ) according to different types of spatiality as carriers and places where the discourses take place. In Gu’s ( 2012 ) conceptualizations, language and discourse are metaphorically spatialized: language is seen in terms of the place where it takes place. Multimodality is evaluated based on space (Gu, 2009 ). Though it is arguable to what extent language is seen as a conflation of modes or semiotic attributes in Gu ( 2009 ), his work demarcates an ambivalent boundary between language and the “non-language”. Also, in “spatializing” language as discourse geography, it represents language and discourse as a PLACE or SPACE metaphor that is multimodal itself. In addition, it analyses the translation between different modes, for instance, the “modalization” of written language into visuals and sounds; visuals are also seen as forms of “modalized” language and vice versa. As such, Gu ( 2009 ) also represents the “spatial turn” of sociolinguistics which can be seen as the research trend that regards language as multimodal construct.

In general, the trend to spatialize language and discourse (or the “spatial turn”), with the concepts or frameworks such as semiotic landscape, place semiotics, and discourse geography, treats language as multimodal construct in the following two aspects. First, it focuses on metalinguistic or metadiscursive ideologies that are embedded in different modes of signs or symbols; also, Gu’s research metaphorically theorizes social interaction through multimodality. In other words, it posits that language itself is multimodal or modalizable in meaning-making. Written language has its multimodal dimensions such as facets of its inscription including fonts, letterform, material quality, layering and state changes (Scollon and Scollon, 2003 ). Different forms of language are multimodal in terms of spatiality: they can be naturally multimodal and aural-visual for instance in televised discourse; written language can also be “modalized” (Gu, 2009 , p. 11) into visuals (Gu, 2009 ). Overall, language is either considered as signs in the spatialized system or actions in trajectories of activities. It is an integral part of multimodal construct, where other modes (visual, gesture, action, and so on) are not peripheral or auxiliary, but frequently they also belong to linguistic resources, for instance, the visual resources in text arts.

Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective

There are sociolinguistic approaches towards multimodality that combine social interactional sociolinguistics (Goffman, 1959 , 1963 , 1974 ), social semiotic approach towards multimodality (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996 ), and intercultural communication (Wertsch, 1998 ). We summarize these approaches as multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective, which include mediated discourse analysis (Scollon and Scollon, 2003 ) and multimodal interaction analysis (Norris, 2004 ); the latter grew out of the former.

Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective focus on people’s daily actions and interactions, and the environment and technologies with(in) which they take place. This trend of research sees discourse as (embedded in) social interaction and sets out to investigate social action through multimodal resources used in daily interaction, such as gestures, postures, and language (see Jones and Norris, 2005 ). In Norris’s ( 2004 ) framework for multimodal interaction analysis, units of analysis are a system of layered and hierarchical actions including the lower-level actions such as an utterance of spoken language, a gesture, or a posture, and the higher-level actions consisting of chains of higher-level actions. Norris ( 2004 ) also coins the term “modal density” to refer to the complexity of modes a social actor uses to produce higher-level actions.

The focus on hierarchical levels of actions and the concept of “modal density” entail reflections on the question with regard to what constitute(s) mode and language. Language in multimodal interaction analysis is seen as a type of lower-level action amongst other different embodied resources that are at interactants’ disposal. These embodied resources are seen as different modes such as gesture, gaze, and proxemics. But arguably gestures and gazes in Norris ( 2004 ) are also seen as forms of language in interaction as well. Furthermore, regarding the mode of spoken language, Norris ( 2004 ) and her other works methodologically treat it as a multimodal construct where the pitches and intonation are visualized through various fonts in the wave-shaped annotation, along with the policeman’s gestures, as shown in Fig. 1 .

The policeman’s spoken language is treated as a multimodal construct where the pitches and intonation are visualized through various fonts in the wave-shaped annotation, along with his gestures.

Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective, similar to other sociolinguistic approaches to multimodality, target the meta-modal or metadiscursive facets of ideology. This is done through a bottom-up approach, that is, examining the general social categories of such as power, dominance and ideology from people’s daily (inter)action. This trend of research focuses on basic units of actions in people’s daily interaction; the conception of mode and language is oriented toward seeing language as multimodal; the methodological treatment of languages also shows this orientation. Multimodal studies from the social interactional perspective are intended to reveal the ideology and power embedded in language as action. Overall, they perceive language as a multimodal construct in social (inter)action.

Metrolingualism, heteroglossia, polylanguaging and multimodality

In the second section of the paper, we mentioned the works on some similar notions such as metrolingualism and polylanguaging. In this section, we will review the latest application of the notion of metrolingualism in multimodal analysis and discuss why other related notions or approaches also encapsulate the conceptualization regarding language as a multimodal construct.

Metrolingualism is a concept postulated by Otsuji and Pennycook ( 2010 ) originally referring to “creative linguistic conditions across space and borders of culture, history and politics, as a way to move beyond current terms such as multilingualism and multiculturalism” (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010 , p. 244). Their later works (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2014 , 2015a , 2015b ) develop the concept and reformulate it as a broader notion encompassing the everyday language use in the city and linguistic landscapes in urban settings.

In Pennycook and Otsuji ( 2014 , 2015b ), metrolingualism involves the practice of “metrolingual multitasking” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 15), in which “linguistic resources, everyday tasks and social space are intertwined” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 15). Metrolingualism thus is not only concerned with the mixed use of linguistic resources (from different languages), but it involves how language use is involved in broader multimodal practices such as (embodied) actions accompanying or included in the metrolingual process, (changing) space or places where these actions and language use take place, and the objects in the environment. Pennycook and Otsuji ( 2015b ) include an olfactory mode in their analysis of the metrolingual practices in cities. Smell is represented through linguistic or pictorial signs in the city and suburb to constitute “smellscapes” in relation to social activities, ethnicities, gender and races. Metrolingual smellscapes are represented through the conflation of written and visual signs and symbols (e.g., street signs), social activities (e.g., buying and selling, and riding a bus), objects (e.g., spices), and places or spaces (e.g., suburb markets, coffee shops, buses and trains). The conventional distinction between language and the non-language is less important, or not at issue here, as smells have to be represented through language or visuals, and more resources are conceptualized as metrolingual other than languages.

Language in Pennycook and Otsuji’s ( 2014 , 2015a , 2015b ) conception of metrolingualism, in this regard, is seen as being integrated into different types of activities and actions; it is also spatialized in the sense that metrolingual practice is seen as involving the organization of space, the relationship between “locution and location” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 84), (historical) layers of cities (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015b , p. 140). The spatialization is intrinsically multimodal, which we have discussed in earlier sections.

In relation to metrolingualism, Jaworski ( 2014 ) briefly reviews the history of arts and writing, from which he chose the art form of “text art” as his research subject. Referring to the notion of metrolingualism, he sees these art forms as “metrolingual art”, where language interacts with other modes or is seen as part of the visual mode. He suggests that it be useful to “extend the range of semiotic features amenable to metrolingual usage to include whole multimodal resources” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 151). The multimodal representations in text art are realized by mixing, meshing and queering of the linguistic features, as well as by its relation to a “melange of styles, genres, content, and materiality” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 151). In this regard, the multimodal affordances (Kress, 2010 ; Jewitt, 2009 ) realized by materiality (e.g., papers, cloths, walls where the language is written), media (e.g., soundtrack, video, moving images, etc.), and styles (e.g., fonts, letterform, layering like add-ons or decorations) are an integral part of the metrolingualism. Subsequently, he postulates that it would be useful to align the concept of heteroglossia with metrolingualism, so as “to extend the idea of metrolingualism beyond ‘hybrid and multilingual’ speaker practices (Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010 , p. 244) and move towards a more ‘generic’ view of metrolingualism as a form of heteroglossia” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 152). In this way, it relates the subject position taken by the producers of the text arts to their social orientation or alignment as regards power, domination, hegemony, and ideology in a broader social realm. This is also in line with Bailey’s discussion about heterogliossia: “(a) heteroglossia can encompass socially meaningful forms in both bilingual and monolingual talk; (b) it can account for the multiple meanings and readings of forms that are possible, depending on one’s subject position, and (c) it can connect historical power hierarchies to the meanings and valences of particular forms in the here-and-now” (Bailey, 2007 , pp. 266–267; also quoted in Jaworski, 2014 , p. 153). Overall, Jaworski ( 2014 ) shows how metrolingualism and heteroglossia can be used to analyse features of language and their place in multimodal construct. He also discusses how other notions which are similar to metrolingualism may bear a relationship with multimodality in that they stress “the importance of linguistic features (rather than discrete languages) as resources for speakers to achieve their communicative aims” (Jaworski, 2014 , p. 138).

Apart from the concepts of metrolingualism and heteroglossia, Jaworski ( 2014 ) touches upon the relationship between polylanguaging and multimodality, but he does not elaborate on it. Jørgensen ( 2008 ) demonstrates how polylanguaging is concerned with the use of language features in language practice among adolescents in superdiverse societies. Some of these language features “would be difficult to categorize in any given language” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 25); that is, they do not belong to any standard language system (e.g., English, Chinese, German). In addition, emoticons are frequently used in communication via social networking software. If some of these language features do not belong to any given language, it is difficult to say whether they can be seen as languages. The attention on features of language hence blurs the boundary between language and other semiotic resources. Of course, these features can be seen as a type of linguistic (lexical, morphemic or phonemic) units which still belong to language, but they are frequently used in multimodal meaning-making. Below I use Jørgensen et al.’s ( 2011 , p. 26) example (Fig. 2 ) to illustrate this.

The “majority boy” makes use of resources from the minority’s language (the word “shark”).

Jørgensen et al.’s analysis of this example focuses on the “majority boy” using the word “shark”, which is a loan word from Arabic. As a majority member, he is using the minority’s language to which he is not entitled. Judging by the interaction, it can be seen that “both interlocutors are aware of the norm and react accordingly” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 25). As such he noted that one feature of polylanguaging is “the use of resources associated with different ‘languages’ even when the speaker knows very little of these” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 25).

What also needs attention but is not discussed by Jørgensen et al. ( 2011 ), is the interlocutors’ creative way to use these features in polylanguaging: the word “shark” is written as a prolonged “shaarkkk” in terms of its phonetic and visual effects. The creative configuration of the language feature “shark” functions to draw other interlocutors’ attention toward the polylanguaging practice. The emoticon “:D” following it is to demonstrate that the speaker knows that he is using language features by violating the “normal” rules; that is, he is using the minority language features to which he is not entitled. The repeated words “cough, cough”, followed by the emoticon “:D”, also demonstrate this.

Polylanguaging, as formulated by Jørgensen et al. ( 2011 ), deviates from the tradition of multilingualism to enumerate languages, but focuses on language features that may not belong to any given language. In this sense, the emoticons or creative configuration of words can also be seen as language features—the language features that are creatively used by a virtual community of (young) netizens in communication. These features are multimodal in the following aspects. First, they visualize the polylanguaging practice by creating new forms of words, for instance, the prolonged word “shaarkkk”. This creation itself is in fact also a process of polylanguaging, in the sense that it uses the features of common language, or language in people’s daily life (that is, non-cyber language) to create new cyber-language that is used by members of a virtual community. Second, these language features utilize the multimodal resources of embodiment in polylanguaging. For example, emoticons use different letters or punctuations (as language features from people’s daily written language) to represent different facial expressions and emotions. The repetition of the words “cough, cough”, as “a reference to a cliché way of expressing doubt or scepticism” (Jørgensen et al., 2011 , p. 27) also takes on an embodied stance. It shows that the interlocutors are aware that the majority boy is using the minority’s language to which he is not entitled. Hence, this embodied stance indexes the polylanguaging practice. To summarize what is discussed above, polylanguaging entails seeing language as a multimodal construct, as interlocutors creatively adapt language features in daily communication (face-to-face or written communication not involving the internet) or utilize embodied language features when polylanguaging in online communication.

Discussion and a critical reflection

In the sections “Language as written and spoken signs and symbols” and “Language in vis-à-vis as multimodal construct” above, we delineated the ontological perceptions of language in sociolinguistics, including language as spoken and written signs and symbols, language in vis-à-vis as a multimodal construct. In teasing out various trends of approaches, language in sociolinguistics is found to have undergone several stages of development. Language as spoken and written signs and symbols have been pursued in variational sociolinguistics, bi- and multilingualism, and the latest theoretical and conceptual trends of research that do not see language as separate and separable systems or codes. Language in sociolinguistics, however, has been predominantly placed in nuanced and complicated relationships with other semiotic resources. Research regarding language in multimodal constructs sees language and non-language resources as different modes, or types of resources. These different modes have boundaries, and efforts are made to see how each mode combines with each other in meaning-making; language itself is a distinctive type of mode, interdependent with but different from other modes. Research regarding language as a multimodal construct sees language itself as multimodal, language is spatialized (that is, probed in relation to various spatiality and materiality where they appear); in the social interactional approach to multimodality, it is embodied and seen as embedded in a layered and hierarchical system of modes (including gesture, posture, and intonation) in social interaction; in the latest concepts built on languaging, language is regarded as “inventions” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2005 ), as cross- and trans-cultural practice, instead of separable and enumerable codes, or system. Language is entangled and integrated with objects (for instance, signage, and the materiality where it appears) and multitasking with embodied resources (gestures, talking, and simultaneously doing other things).

Expanding the ontology of language from verbal resources toward various multimodal constructs has enabled sociolinguists to pursue meaning-making, indexicalities and social variations in its most authentic state. Language itself is multimodal, though it cannot be denied that language and other modes do have boundaries and distinctions (yet not always being so). Whenever a language is spoken, the stresses, intonations, and paralinguistic resources are all integrated into it. Focusing on language per se has generated fruitful outcomes in sociolinguistic studies, but placing language in the multi-semiotic resources has innovated the field and it has become the dominant trend in contemporary sociolinguistics. Both languages in or as multimodal constructs have captured the complex ways in which language interacts with multi-subjects, materiality, objects and spatiality. But it may be found that the latest research in sociolinguistics comes to increasingly see language itself as an intricate multimodal construct, as encapsulated by various new concepts and theories including translanguaging, metrolingualism, and polylanguaing, in the contexts of globalization, migration, multi-ethnicity, and new communication technologies. Language is not only seen as separable codes and systems spoken or written by a different group of people, but it entails a wider range of communicative repertoires including embodied meaning-making, objects and the environment where the written or spoken signs are placed. It hence may be speculated that sociolinguistics will be increasingly less concerned with the boundaries of language and non-language resources, but will focus more on the social constructs, social meaning, and language as a force in social change. The enumerating and separating way of studying language and multimodality—that is, delineating inter-semiotic boundaries and focusing on how modes of communication are combined in meaning-making—has generated various outcomes, especially in the field of grammar-oriented social semiotic research and MCDA. However, contemporary sociolinguistic studies have immensely expanded their scope toward a wider range of areas other than discursive, grammatical, and communicative. The three research paradigms regarding language as a multimodal construct reviewed in “Language as multimodal construct” have proved themselves as a feasible approach toward language in social interaction, geo-semiotics, and language use in ethnographical and multi-ethnic settings. The ontology of language in sociolinguistics, in this regard, may be perceived in terms of the sociology and societal facets of multimodal construct, rather than language placed in a multitude of semiotic types or the verbal resources per se. A critical reflection on the ontology of language is one of the prerequisites of innovations in contemporary linguistics, which is also the objective of this comprehensive review.

As can be seen through the above discussion, there are several versions of the perception of language in sociolinguistics. First, perceptions of language as a written or verbal system are moving from, or have moved from, the enumerating traditions bi- or multi-lingualism towards seeing language as an inseparable entity with fixity and fluidity. In other words, new approaches in sociolinguistics come to see languages as comprising different features, repertories, or resources, rather than different or discrete standard languages such as English, French, German and so on. The negotiation, construction, or attribution of ethnicity, identity, power and ideologies through language also has taken on a more dynamic and diverse look. Second, there is sociolinguistic research that places language with in the multimodal construct. Language is seen as being contextualized by other multimodal semiotics that is seen as “non-language”. However, more research comes to see language as multimodal construct; that is, language, be it written or spoken, is multimodal in itself as it comprises multimodal elements such as type, font, materiality, intonation, embodied representations and so on. It is also activated (seen as actions or activities) or spatialized in different approaches such as mediated discourse analysis, multimodal interaction analysis, geosemiotics, semiotic landscape, and metrolingualism discussed earlier. Third, these changing perceptions of languages in sociolinguistics result from researchers’ innovative efforts to view language from different perspectives. More importantly, they arise from the fact that language itself is also changing as society changes. As mentioned in the beginning, the world has been increasingly globalized and communications technologies have fundamentally changed the ways people interact with each other. Linguistic practices are complicated by the super-diversity of ethnic fluidity (e.g., the diversity of ethnic groups and the ever-present changes in ethnic structure), communications technologies, and globalized cross-cultural art.

In sum, it can be argued that contemporary sociolinguistics has become increasingly concerned with languaging (trans-, poly-, metro-, and pluri- and so on), rather than languages as a type of (static and fixed) verbal resource with demarcated boundaries separating them from other multimodal resources. Language is multimodal; it is embedded in or represents social activities, places or spaces, objects, and smells. Language in society belongs to and constitutes the “semiotic assemblage” (Pennycook, 2017 ) that can be better analysed holistically so as to reach an understanding of “how different trajectories of people, semiotic resources and objects meet at particular moments and places” (Pennycook, 2017 , p. 269). At a fundamental level of sociolinguistic ontology, this trend of research reflects the changing ways in which sociolinguists come to understand what language is and how it should be understood as part of a more general range of semiotic practices.

Agha A (2003) The social life of cultural value. Language Commun 23(3–4):231–273

Article   Google Scholar  

Berger P, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday, New York

Google Scholar  

Blackledge A, Creese A (2010) Multilingualism: a critical perspective. Continuum, London

Blommaert J (Ed.) (1999) Language ideological debates, vol. 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

Blommaert J (2005) Discourse: a critical introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Bourdieu P (1991) Language and symbolic power [Thompson JB (ed and introd)] (trans: Raymond G, Adamson M). Polity Press/Blackwell, Cambridge

Bailey B (2007) Heteroglossia and boundaries. In: Heller M (Ed.) Bilingualism: a social approach. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 257–274

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cameron D (1990) Demythologizing sociolinguistics: why language does not reflect society. In: Joseph J, Taylor T (eds) Ideologies of language. Routledge, London, pp. 79–93

Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Coupland N (2003) Sociolinguistic authenticities. J Sociolinguist 7(3):417–431

Coupland N (2007) Style: language variation and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Creese A, Blackledge A (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? Mod Language J 94:103–115

Eckert P, Rickford JR (Eds.) (2001) Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Eckert P (2008) Variation and the indexical field. J Sociolinguist 12(4):453–476

Eckert P (2012) Three waves of variation study: the emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annu Rev Anthropol 41(1):87–100

García O, Li W (2014) Translanguaing: language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York, NY

Goffman E (1963) Behavior in public places. Free Press, New York, NY

Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis. Harper & Row, New York, NY

Goodwin C (2007) Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse Soc 18(1):53–73

Gu Y (2009) Four-borne discourses: towards language as a multi-dimensional city of history. In: Li W, Cook V (eds.) Linguistics in the real world. Continuum, London, pp. 98–121

Gu Y (2012) Discourse geography. In: Gee JP, Hanford M (eds.) The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp. 541–557

Hebdige D (1984) Framing the youth ‘problem’: the construction of troublesome adolescence. In: Garms-Homolová V, Hoerning EM, Schaeffer D (eds.) Intergenerational Relationships. Lewiston, NY: C. J. Hogrefe, pp.184–195

Holliday N (2021) Prosody and sociolinguistic variation in American Englishes. Annu Rev Linguist 7:55–68

Irvine JT, Gal S (2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity PV (ed.) Regimes of language: ideologies, polities, and identities. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 35–84

Jaworski A (2014) Metrolingual art: multilingualism and heteroglossia. Int J Biling 18(2):134–158

Jaworski A, Thurlow C (eds.) (2010) Semiotic landscapes: language, image, space. Continuum, New York

Jewitt C (2009) Different approaches to multimodality. In: Jewitt C (ed) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 28–39

Jewitt C (2013) Multimodality and digital technologies in the classroom. In: de Saint-Georges I, Weber J (eds) Mulitlingualism and multimodality: current challenges for educational studies. Sense Publishing, Boston, pp. 141–152

Jørgensen JN (2008) Poly-lingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. Int J Multiling 5(3):161–176

Jørgensen JN, Karrebæk MS, Madsen LM, Møller JS (2011) Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities 13(2):23–37

Jacquemet M (2005) Transidiomaticpractices: language and power in the age of globalization. Language Commun 25:257–277

Jones R, Norris S (2005) Discourse as action/discourse in action. In: Norris S, Jones R (eds) Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp. 1–3

Kallen J (2010) Changing landscapes: language, space and policy in the Dublin linguistic landscape. In: Jaworski A, Thurlow C (eds) Semiotic landscapes: language, image, space. New York: Continuum, pp. 41–58

Kress GR (2010) Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge, London

Kress GR, van Leeuwen T (1996) Reading Images: the grammar of graphic design. Routledge, London

Kroskrity PV (1998) Arizona Tewa Kiva speech as a manifestation of linguistic ideology. In: Schieffelin BB, Woolard KA, Kroskrity P (eds) Language ideologies: practice and theory. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 103–122

Labov W (1963) The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19(3):273–309

Labov W (1966) Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. Sociolinguistics 1966:84–113

Lawson R (2020) Language and masculinities: history, development, and future. Annu Rev Linguist 6(1):409–434

Lewis WG, Jones B, Baker C (2012) Translanguaging: origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educ Res Eval 18(7):641–654

Li W, Wang J (2022) Chronotopic identities in contemporary Chinese poetry calligraphy. Poznan Stud Contemp Linguist 58(4):861–884

Machin D (2016) The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse Soc 27(3):322–334

Machin D, Mayr A (2012) How to do critical discourse analysis: a multimodal introduction. Sage, London

Maher J (2005) Metroethnicity, language, and the principle of Cool. Int J Sociol Language 11:83–102

Makoni S, Pennycook A (2005) Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Crit Inq Language Stud 2(3):137–156

Martin-Jones M, Blackledge A, Creese A (eds) (2012) The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. Routledge, London

Norris S (2004) Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methodological framework. Routledge, London

Otsuji E, Pennycook A (2010) Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. Int J Multiling 7:240–254

Pennycook A (2017) Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. Int J Multiling 14(3):1–14

Pennycook A, Otsuji E (2014) Metrolingual multitasking and spatial repertoires: ‘Pizza mo two minutes coming’. J Socioling 18(2):161–184

Pennycook A, Otsuji E (2015a) Making scents of the landscape. Linguist Landsc 1(3):191–212

Pennycook A, Otsuji E (2015b) Metrolingualism. Language in the city. Routledge, New York

Sankoff G (2018) Language change across the lifespan. Annu Rev Linguist 4:297–316

Schegloff EA (1992) In another context. In: Duranti A, Goodwin C (eds) Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 191–227

Schegloff EA (1998a) Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and poststructuralism in dialogue: reply to Wetherell. Discourse Soc 9(3):413–416

Schegloff EA (1998b) Reply to Wetherell. Discourse Soc 9(3):457–60

Schegloff EA (1999) ‘Schegloff’s texts’ as ‘Billig’s data’: a critical reply. Discourse Soc 10(4):558–572

Scollon R, Scollon S (2003) Discourses in place: language in the material world. Routledge, New York

Saussure F (1916) Course in general linguistics. Duckworth, London

Wang J (2014) Criticising images: critical discourse analysis of visual semiosis in picture news. Crit Arts 28(2):264–286

Wang J (2016a) Multimodal narratives in SIA’s “Singapore Girl” TV advertisements—from branding with femininity to branding with provenance and authenticity? Soc Semiot 26(2):208–225

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wang J (2016b) A new political and communication agenda for political discourse analysis: critical reflections on critical discourse analysis and political discourse analysis. Int J Commun 10:19

ADS   Google Scholar  

Wang J (2019) Stereotyping in representing the “Chinese Dream” in news reports by CNN and BBC. Semiotica 2019(226):29–48

Wang J, Jin G (2022) Critical discourse analysis in China: history and new developments. In: Aronoff M, Chen Y, Cutler C (eds) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.909

Wang J, Li W (2022) Situating affect in Chinese mediated soundscapes of suona. Soc Semiot. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2022.2139171

Wang J, Yang M (2022) Interpersonal-function topoi in Chinese central government’s work report (2020) as epidemic (counter-) crisis discourse. J Language Politics. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22022.wan

Wertsch JV (1998) Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Woolard K (1999) Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism. J Linguist Anthropol 8(1):3–29

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our thanks are extended to Dr. William Dezheng Feng for his constructive advice on the earlier drafts of the paper. This work is supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Project No. 18CYY050); the Foreign Language Education Foundation of China (Project No. ZGWYJYJJ11A030); and the Self-Determined Research Funds of CCNU from MOE for basic research and operation (Project No. CCNU20TD008).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

Jiayu Wang, Guangyu Jin & Wenhua Li

Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China

Guangyu Jin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All three authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. JW mainly participated in drafting the work. GJ revised it critically for important intellectual content. WL participated in major intellectual contributions to the Chinese versions of the paper (unpublished); her ideas and points are integrated into the final version of this paper. All three authors are corresponding authors responsible for the final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jiayu Wang , Guangyu Jin or Wenhua Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, J., Jin, G. & Li, W. Changing perceptions of language in sociolinguistics. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 91 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01574-5

Download citation

Received : 12 September 2022

Accepted : 20 February 2023

Published : 08 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01574-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Applied Linguistics
• Biology of Language
• Cognitive Science
• Computational Linguistics
• Historical Linguistics
• History of Linguistics
• Language Families/Areas/Contact
• Linguistic Theories
• Neurolinguistics
• Phonetics/Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sign Languages
• Sociolinguistics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

• Christine Mallinson Christine Mallinson University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.22
• Published online: 03 November 2015

The study of sociolinguistics constitutes a vast and complex topic that has yielded an extensive and multifaceted body of scholarship. Language is fundamentally at work in how we operate as individuals, as members of various communities, and within cultures and societies. As speakers, we learn not only the structure of a given language; we also learn cultural and social norms about how to use language and what content to communicate. We use language to navigate expectations, to engage in interpersonal interaction, and to go along with or to speak out against social structures and systems.

Sociolinguistics aims to study the effects of language use within and upon societies and the reciprocal effects of social organization and social contexts on language use. In contemporary theoretical perspectives, sociolinguists view language and society as being mutually constitutive : each influences the other in ways that are inseparable and complex. Language is imbued with and carries social, cultural, and personal meaning. Through the use of linguistic markers, speakers symbolically define self and society. Simply put, language is not merely content; rather, it is something that we do , and it affects how we act and interact as social beings in the world.

Language is a social product with rich variation along individual, community, cultural, and societal lines. For this reason, context matters in sociolinguistic research. Social categories such as gender, race/ethnicity, social class, nationality, etc., are socially constructed, with considerable variation within and among categories. Attributes such as “female” or “upper class” do not have universal effects on linguistic behavior, and sociolinguists cannot assume that the most interesting linguistic differences will be between groups of speakers in any simple, binary fashion. Sociolinguistic research thus aims to explore social and linguistic diversity in order to better understand how we, as speakers, use language to inhabit and negotiate our many personal, cultural, and social identities and roles.

• linguistics
• sociolinguistics

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Linguistics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 13 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• [66.249.64.20|185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

Rethinking Community in Linguistics: Language and Community in the Digital Age

• First Online: 01 January 2020

Cite this chapter

• Sven Leuckert 2  

887 Accesses

5 Citations

Within the field of linguistics, sociolinguistics has a long-standing tradition of providing highly relevant contributions to community research, in particular with its work on speech communities and communities of practice. While ‘speech communities’ are groups with shared values and attitudes towards language use, the term ‘community of practice’ emphasises the idea of shared goals and practices in a community. Sven Leuckert’s contribution links these traditional notions of sociolinguistics to the digital realm by reporting on a case study using data from the social media platform Reddit , a major website for online communities. In order to establish that subreddits, i.e. specialised sub-forums on Reddit , are indeed (linguistic) communities, linguistic features shared by users on the website and meta-comments about the community are presented and discussed. A central outcome of the case study is that online communities have much in common with traditional ideas of communities, but they also offer new challenges and insights for sociolinguistics and community research in a wider context. In particular, the degree of freedom and accessibility as well as the blurring of modes of communication in online communities require in-depth analysis.

I would like to thank Bettina Jansen and Claudia Lange for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this chapter. All remaining shortcomings are entirely my own.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2006. “Introduction: Sociolinguistics and Computer-Mediated Communication.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 419–438.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anthony, Laurence. 2018. AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/ . Accessed August 10, 2018.

Baym, Nancy K. 2003. “Communication in Online Communities.” In Encyclopedia of Community . Vol. 3, edited by Karen Christiansen and David Levinson, 1015–1017. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. “‘Why Be Normal?’: Language and Identity Practices in a Community of Nerd Girls.” Language in Society 28 (2): 203–223.

Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Danet, Brenda, and Susan C. Herring. 2007. The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dayter, Daria, and Sofia Rüdiger. 2016. “Reporting from the Field: The Narrative Reconstruction of Experience in Pick-Up Artist Online Communities.” Open Linguistics 2: 337–351.

Eckert, Penelope, and Étienne Wenger. 2005. “What Is the Role of Power in Sociolinguistic Variation?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (4): 582–589.

Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. “Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490.

Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and Gender . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, John J. 1968. “The Speech Community.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences , edited by David L. Sills, 381–386. New York: Macmillan.

Graham, Sage Lambert. 2007. “Conflict, (Im)Politeness and Identity in a Computer-Mediated Community.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 742–759.

Herring, Susan C. 2004. “Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching Online Communities.” In Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning , edited by Sasha A. Barab, Rob Kling, and James H. Gray, 338–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Heyd, Theresa. 2016. “Global Varieties of English Gone Digital: Orthographic and Semantic Variation in Digital Nigerian Pidgin.” In English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change , edited by Lauren Squires, 101–122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hinrichs, Lars. 2006. Codeswitching on the Web: English and Jamaican Creole in E-Mail Communication . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hockett, Charles F. 1960. “The Origin of Speech.” Scientific American 203: 88–96.

Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. (1985) 2012. “Language of Immediacy—Language of Distance: Orality and Literacy from the Perspective of Language Theory and Linguistic History.” In Communicative Spaces: Variation, Contact, and Change : Papers in Honour of Ursula Schaefer , edited by Claudia Lange, Beatrix Weber, and Göran Wolf, 441–473. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kopaczyk, Joanna, and Andreas H. Jucker. 2013. Communities of Practice in the History of English . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Krefeld, Thomas. 2016. “L’immédiat, la proximité et la distance communicative.” In Manuel de linguistique française , edited by Claudia Polzin-Haumann and Wolfgang Schweickard, 262–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. I: Internal Factors . Oxford: Blackwell.

Lave, Jean, and Étienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lawthom, Rebecca. 2011. “Developing Learning Communities: Using Communities of Practice within Community Psychology.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (1): 153–164.

Love, Robbie, Claire Dembry, Andrew Hardie, Vaclav Brezina, and Tony McEnery. 2017. “The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and Building a Spoken Corpus of Everyday Conversations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (3): 319–344.

Mair, Christian. 2013. “The World System of Englishes: Accounting for the Transnational Importance of Mobile and Mediated Vernaculars.” English World-Wide 34 (3): 253–278.

Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2011. Introducing Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Milroy, James, and Leslie Milroy. 1985. “Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation.” Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384.

Milroy, Lesley, and Matthew Gordon. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Moore, Emma. 2006. “‘You Tell All the Stories’: Using Narrative to Explore Hierarchy within a Community of Practice.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (5): 611–640.

Morgan, Marcyliena H. 2014. Speech Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Patrick, Peter L. 2009. “The Speech Community.” In Sociolinguistics, Volume VI: Theoretical Perspectives in Sociolinguistics , edited by Nikolas Coupland and Adam Jaworski, 245–267. Oxon: Routledge.

Preece, Jenny, Diane Maloney-Krichmar, and Chadia Abras. 2003. “History of Online Communities.” In Encyclopedia of Community (Volume 3), edited by Karen Christiansen and David Levinson, 1023–1027. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916) 1967. Cours de linguistique générale . Originally published by Charles Bally and Albert Séchehaye with the Collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Critical edition by Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.

The British National Corpus , version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ . Accessed August 14, 2018.

Thibault, Paul J. 1997. Re-Reading Saussure: The Dynamics of Signs in Social Life . London: Routledge.

Wenger-Trayner, Étienne, and Beverly Wenger-Trayner. 2015. “Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction.” Wenger-Trayner , April 15. http://wenger-trayner.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/07-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf . Accessed September 20, 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Sven Leuckert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Leuckert .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Institute of English and American Studies, TU Dresden, Dresden, Saxony, Germany

Bettina Jansen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Leuckert, S. (2020). Rethinking Community in Linguistics: Language and Community in the Digital Age . In: Jansen, B. (eds) Rethinking Community through Transdisciplinary Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31073-8_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31073-8_7

Published : 01 January 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-31072-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-31073-8

eBook Packages : Literature, Cultural and Media Studies Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 10: Language Variation and Change

10.10 Three waves of sociolinguistics

Recent work in variationist sociolinguistics seeks not just to understand patterns of variation by appealing to social factors but seeks to understand how language and linguistic variation work to express and construct socially-meaningful demarcations. In a 2012 paper, sociolinguist Penelope Eckert identified three ‘waves’ in the history of the field. In the first wave, variationists sought to find correlations between linguistic variation and macro-sociodemographic facts about the participants in their study. In this wave, patterns of linguistic variation were understood as simply falling out from social structures and pre-existing social stratification. In the second wave, variationists recognized that locally-relevant facts about their participants also played an important (if not more important) role in understanding patterns of linguistic variation. For example, the social clique that high school students belong to might be a better predictor of the linguistic behaviour than a student’s social class. In the third (and current) wave of sociolinguistics, the paradigm has shifted and people’s agency with respect to their language use is emphasized, as is the social meaning of variation. Variationist questions today are less, “what social factors correlate with an individual’s linguistic behaviour” but rather, are more like, “how do individuals make use of linguistic variation to express and construct their position in society?”, “how does the use of a particular variant alter the formality/context?” and “how do multiple variables combine to form linguistic styles that signal a wide array of social meanings?”

Scott Kiesling’s (1998) study of frat boys is a great example of a third wave approach to linguistic variation. In the mid 90s, he spent time with a English-speaking members of a fraternity at an American university.  He recorded them in two different contexts: socializing and during fraternity meetings where the members discuss business matters. These meetings followed a set format and were governed by a parliamentary process (e.g., calls to order, one person holding the floor at a time etc.).  Seating at these meetings was also arranged by seniority and power with executive members sitting at the front, and other members arranged in terms of seniority, with the powerless new members to the left and more powerful and more senior members to the right. This context was decidedly more formal than when socializing and this is reflected in the frat boys use of variable -ing : they used way more of the non-standard [ɪn] variant while socializing than during the meetings. Well, most of them at least.  Three of the frat boys showed the opposite pattern and used more of the non-standard variant during the meetings. Kiesling looked closely at the interactional contexts where these guys were using [ɪn] and found that they were using [ɪn] while expressing certain stances and identities. In (8), we can see an excerpt from one of these frat boys. He is making a pitch to be elected to the fraternity’s executive council.

The speaker in (8) expresses a hard working persona that links him with the working class. He’s know for telling it like it is without ‘bullshitting’ folks. His high rate of the non-standard variant in this formal context not only expresses this working class persona, but also works to reframe the context, breaking down the formality and turning the event into one of camaraderie, humour, and friendliness.

A second speaker who uses more [ɪn] during the formal context is the president of the fraternity. In this context, He is at the top of the hierarchy; he is the one with the most structural power. He uses an increased rate of the non-standard in the formal meetings as a means of expressing a confrontational stance when he is in opposition to, or as we can see in example (9), when he is frustrated with the membership.

Kiesling argues that this all connects with the cultural discourse of dominance – the idea that to be a man is to be strong and authoritative. Dominance is most readily expressed through real authority and power. However, working class men, who tend to lack real authority and power, must resort to the expression of dominance through physical means. Men of all stripes, truly powerful or not, draw on this connection when using non-standard variants (remember the idea of covert prestige discussed in section 10.8 ). Non-standard speech indexes working class physical toughness and this indexes dominance. We see this clearly with the fraternity president in (9). But what about the speaker in (8)? His use of non-standard speech isn’t about dominance but about signalling solidarity, informality, and camaraderie. Dominance still comes through here though in a subtle way. He is actively recreating the speech context for everyone… this is a powerful interactional move.

To help you to understand the differences between the three waves of sociolinguistics, let’s use a concrete example. Let’s think about how each of these waves might interpret how Maisie, a Canadian English speaking person, uses variable -ing .

• First wave interpretation: Maisie uses a high rate of the standardized [ɪŋ] variant because she is a young, white, middle class, woman.
• Second wave interpretation:  Maisie belongs to a certain locally-relevant social group: she’s a ‘jock’ in Eckert’s sense and her high use of standardized [ɪŋ] aligns with that group’s general conformity with authority and normative behaviour.
• Third wave interpretation: Maisie makes frequent use of [ɪŋ] in her speech to construct her identity as an articulate and educated woman.

Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation.  Annual review of Anthropology. 41: 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828

Kiesling, S. F. (1998). Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men.  Journal of Sociolinguistics ,  2 (1): 69-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00031

Essentials of Linguistics, 2nd edition Copyright © 2022 by Catherine Anderson; Bronwyn Bjorkman; Derek Denis; Julianne Doner; Margaret Grant; Nathan Sanders; and Ai Taniguchi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Effects of Sociolinguistics Factors on Learning English: A Case Study

2019, International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation

There are some factors like educational, psychological, administrative, sociolinguistics and etc. which affect on the learning of a second language. We probed age, gender and parents' jobs as three sociolinguistics factors in relation to learn English as second language by Iranian students. The authors tried to know whether the three mentioned factors have influence on learning English or not. To answer this question, a statistical population of all secondary school students in Shiraz, one of the cities in Iran, was selected for this field research. First, five secondary school were selected by cluster sampling method from all the existed secondary schools in Shiraz. And then, Ninety girls and ninety boys were chosen to participate in this investigation. A questionnaire of fifteen-items was designed to collect data. The researchers applied Split-half reliability and obtained a reliability coefficient of 0.9. One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), t-test and Pearson Product Moment correlation statistics applied for the data analysis. The result showed that in spite of previous researches, gender and age have no meaningful significant effect on the use of English by Iranian students. On the other hand, this field study came to conclusion that fathers or mothers' occupations have an important role in the students' use of learning English at school. So, we can infer from the conclusion that families with lower social and occupational status should compensate this shortage with different and exciting motivations for their children to learn English better at school.

Related Papers

Canadian Social Science

samsiah bidin

Liceo journal of higher education research

Hafiz Amanullah

This study was conducted to see cultural factors affecting on learning English as a second language in Pakistan. Culture is collection of attributes of a group of people and language is an important part of it. As culture varies from country to country, region to region, family to family even sometime within family that affects on nurturing the children’s habits that makes attitudes that affects on learning. So is the case of English learning that is affected by culture especially when it is being learned as a second language. This study was conducted to explore some dimensions in this perspective. The objective of this study was to see socio-cultural factors affecting on learning English at intermediate level students. In this study 430 students were participants and rural and urban is used variable. A validated survey questionnaire was used to collect required information. The collected data was analyzed with the help of SPSS-16. The results revealed that social factors affect on learning English that vary with respect to area. Keywords - second language, multilingual, socio-cultural, variation, learning English, Pakistan

International Journal of English Learning and Applied Linguistics (IJELAL)

rezki sabri

The research aimed at finding out whether or not (1) there was a significant effect between socioeconomic status on students’ speaking skill, and (2) there was a significant effect between motivation on students’ speaking skill at second semester of English Department Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar. The research method was Descriptive Quantitative Research. The data collected through questionnaires (to obtained students’ socioeconomic status and motivation) and lecturer's document (to obtained students’ speaking score). From the population of 61 students in Academic Year 2021/2022, the researcher chose 30 students as sample by using random sampling techniques. The data analyzed by using Multiple Liniear Regression Analysis in SPSS. The result of data analysis, it found 1) based on T-test, the results of socioeconomic status on students’ speaking skill were T-test 1.456 > T-table 1.703, indicating there was no significant effect of socioeconomic status on students’ speaking...

Muhammad Ahmad

This research explores the factors which may affect second language acquisition in the students of grade-8. In previous studies many factors like gender, medium of instruction, parental/guardian's SES (socioeconomic status), area of residence, and out of school coaching are reported to determine students' academic performance and language learning (e.g. Ali, Haider, Munir, Khan and Ahmed, 2013 and Graetz, 1995). The central English examination score for 120, 13 years old students (55 girls and 65 boys), was collected. The students were selected from four different public sector schools, (2 boys' schools and two girls' schools), from a district in the central Punjab, Pakistan. Relationship of different factors like gender, medium of instruction (Urdu or English), socioeconomic status (SES), residential area, and out of school coaching with Second language acquisition was estimated with the help of comparing L2 scores through t-tests. Results showed that scores in English examination were significantly different for gender, SES, and residential area (rural or Urban). Out of school coaching and medium of instruction could not make a significant difference in L2 learning. Unexpectedly, Urdu medium public sector schools' children performed a little better than English medium schools' children in English examination, like the children who were receiving out of school coaching for English. On the basis of the these results, the study concluded that the factors like gender, out of school coaching, and SES could be predictors to language learning. Therefore, government authorities and syllabus designers could work to reduce the differences of literacy skills by adopting better policies.

International Journal of Learning and Development

rabbia Arshad

Global Economics Review

Saira Maqbool Asst. Professor English Language & Applied Linguists

In Pakistan English is taught as a compulsory subject in private as well as public schools form primary till university level. Resulting in the different outcomes by different socioeconomic status student. The current study attempts to study the correlation between socio-economic status and their achievement in the subject of English using survey method. The data was collected through simple random sampling technique. Data was collected 162 students through questionnaire. The descriptive and Pearson correlation were used for data analysis. The results revealed that the students whose parents having managerial category had a high correlation with all the four (sentence, grammar, vocabulary and spelling) skills of English learning. Whereas, students from the unskilled and semiskilled families resulted in a low achievement in English.

Publisher ijmra.us UGC Approved , Ghulam Sarwer

In the present era,English has become one of the most effective global medium of communication. It plays thevital role being the language of the textbooks and medium of instruction at different levels of education.Proficiency in the English language may also increase students overall academic achievement. The present paper focuses on the study of achievement in English of secondary school students in relation to gender, place of living, type of school and different social categories. Thestudyhas been carried out on a sample of 532 secondary school students from Rajouri& Poonch district of Jammu & Kashmir.For the assessment of achievement in English of secondary students,the investigator has constructed and standardized an achievement test in English.Findings of the study indicate that majority of the students havea very low level of achievement in English as per the standard of the test. Also, results show the significant difference in achievement in English of secondary school students with regard to gender, type of school and social categories. However, location does not has any impact on achievement in English of secondary school students.

Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris undiksha

syahrul syahrul

The school environment is also an inhibiting factor for students. For example, the way the lesson is presented is not good. In addition, there are still many parents who ignore the education of their students. This has an impact on students' low English skills. This study aims to analyze family and school conditions on students' English achievement. This research is a correlational study. The research subjects were all students of the class with 24 students. The method used to collect data is observation, interviews, and questionnaires. The instrument used in data collection is a questionnaire. The technique used to analyze the data is descriptive qualitative statistics, and quantitative. The study results are that family conditions have a positive effect on learning achievement in learning English. This shows that when family conditions improve, student achievement will also increase. Partial test (t-test) obtained t count variable influence of family conditions = 6.607 so ...

Kamal A Soomro , Sajid A Yousuf Zai

This paper is based on the English background of the students as the predictors for students English speaking skills at the secondary level at province of Sindh, Pakistan. A questionnaire was designed for students of grade-11, which was used to collect data from 60 male students of the public institutes in district Hyderabad, Pakistan. There were three independent variables used in this study: (X1) either students attended English language institute, (X2) number of years students were educated in English medium schools, and (X3) last class’s English score. The dependent variable was English speaking score (Y). Students’ speaking skills were assessed by a standardized rubric designed by language experts. There were four research questions formulated. Data was analyzed using linear and multiple regression, and t-test in SAS 9.2 (Statistical Analysis System). With α=0.05, the result indicates that there is a significant relationship between student last class’s English score (N=60, M=50.45, SD=9.00) and their speaking scores (N=60, M=11.77, SD=3.21), r = 0.73, p<0.001. The number of years educated in English medium school (b = 0.22, t =2.05) and last class’s English score (b = 0.26, t = 8.26, p <.0001) were found significant predictors at R2 =0.57, F(2,57) =37.20, p<0.001. No statistical significance was indicated in students speaking score between those who attended English language institute (N=48, M= 12.04, SD= 3.43) and those who did not attend an English language institute (N=12, M= 10.67, SD= 1.83), t(58)= –1.34, p = 0.19. Interaction with students showed that most of the students do not speak English with fellow students because of shyness and lack of confidence.

ELT Voices- International Journal for Teachers of English

Azizeh Chalak

Language learning strategies play a crucial role in language learning. The choice of strategies is influenced by a variety of factors such as learning style, motivation, age, gender, attitudes, beliefs, type of task, L2 level, tolerance of ambiguity , cultural and contextual factors. This study was an attempt to examine the relationship between Iranian EFL learn-ers' social classes and their language learning strategies (LLS). Two types of questionnaire-questionnaire of Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and a general biographical questionnaire-as well as an interview and an observation were employed as the instruments for the data collection procedure. The questionnaires were distributed among 90 Isfahanian female EFL learners enrolled in Iran Language Institute (ILI) to look for different strategies-if any-occupied by learners. To determine whether there was a relationship between social class and language learning strategies, an ANNOVA test was administrated. The findings revealed that (a) there was not a significant relationship between social class and the language learning strategies; (b) Iranian EFL learners were medium users of language learning strategies; (c) the cognitive category had the highest mean, followed by compensatory, metacognitive, memory, affective, and social; (d)in all social classes, Cognitive strategies were used at most; (e) and finally, in higher mediate and mediate class, students preferred to use Social strategies less than other categories while, in lower mediate class the less preferred category was the Affective one. It is suggested that educators and administrators can look for more trenchant factors that affect learners' choices of language learning strategies.

RELATED PAPERS

Revista médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

Rodolfo Rivas-Ruiz

alberto ferlin

Malaya Journal of Matematik

Fany Helena

Archeologia E Calcolatori

Antonella Negri

Current Agricultural Science and Technology

Deivid Magano

Philosophical Studies in Education

Thomas Falk

Reviewed Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on Pravni Rozpravy 2016. International Scientific Conference on Law and Law Studies „Theory, Evolution, Practices of Law”, vol. VI

Ewa Milczarek

Yahia CHERGUI

Nicole Ward Gauthier

ima widiyanah

Christina Smith

Dairo Grajales

The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

Mohamed Awad

Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education

FRANCISCA BELMAR

International Journal of Social Psychiatry

Guillermo Ospino

IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS'05)

Sergio Davalos

LEANDRO Passarinho

Review of Financial Studies

Julian Franks

International Journal of Morphology

Carlos Vicentini

DergiPark (Istanbul University)

Zamira Öztürk

Yushan Wang

The New England Journal of Medicine

Maria Beumont

Science and Innovation

Oksana Stavinskaya

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Miłosz Regulski

Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

Chloe Michaut

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Translingual strategies as consumer design: A case study of multilingual linguistic landscapes of urban China

Taking a photo-studio brand named Naive Blue (天真蓝) as a case study, this article seeks to contribute to the understanding of translingual practices as stylistic strategies for commercial purposes in the era of globalization. Sociolinguistic analysis of the brand logo, shop signs and social media promotional practices shows that translingual practices have been mobilized as generative and interactive strategies of consumer design. First, translingual strategies help construct a discursive world not available in monolingual uses of either English or Chinese and position the brand’s target consumers as self-assertive, individualistic, and sharing a taste of distinction. Second, translingual strategies are embodied and metalinguistically conscious practices (expected to be) shared by both the brand’s social-media content manager and his interactants and followers in general. The findings also suggest that translingual practices are part of an emergent register indexing an emergent social class that is tentatively labeled ‘young urban elites’ in contemporary China.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to constructive feedback from the reviewers and Ingrid Piller on an earlier draft of the article. Deep thanks go to all the informants who participated in the present study. It is their kindness and help that made the study possible. I would also like to thank Hai Yu, Ruiming Ma, Jin Han, and Qi Zhao for inspiring discussions on the research idea.

Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities . London: Verso. Search in Google Scholar

Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2014a. Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context and Media 4-5. 62–73. 10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.006 Search in Google Scholar

Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2014b. Computer-mediated communication and linguistic landscapes. in Janet Holmes & Kirk Hazen (eds.), Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical guide , 74–90. London: Wiley Blackwell. Search in Google Scholar

Arkaraprasertkul, Non. 2016. Gentrification from within: Urban social change as anthropological process. Asian Anthropology . doi: 10.1080/1683478X.2016.1158227 . Search in Google Scholar

Auken, Stuart Van, Ludmilla Gricenko Wells & Daniel J. Borgia. 2014. Assessing materialism among the future elites of China. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 26(2). 88–105. 10.1080/08961530.2014.878202 Search in Google Scholar

Backhaus, Peter. 2007. Linguistic landscapes: A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo . Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 10.21832/9781853599484 Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13. 145–204. 10.1017/S004740450001037X Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Allan. 2001. Back in style: Reworking audience design. in Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation , 139–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613258.010 Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2008. Grassroots literacy: Writing, identity and voice in Central Africa . London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203895481 Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2012. The sociolinguistics of globalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan & Ad Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 67. 1–26. Search in Google Scholar

Bolton, Kinsley. 2012. World Englishes and linguistic landscapes. World Englishes 31. 30–33. 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01748.x Search in Google Scholar

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511812507 Search in Google Scholar

Bruyèl-Olmedo, Antonio & Maria Juan-Garau. 2015. Shaping tourist LL: Language display and the sociolinguistic background of an international multilingual readership. International Journal of Multilingualism 12(1). 51–67. 10.1080/14790718.2013.827688 Search in Google Scholar

Canagarajah, Suresh. 2011. Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern language Journal 95. 401–417. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x Search in Google Scholar

Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations . New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203120293 Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Ping. 2004[1999]. Modern Chinese: History and sociolinguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164375 Search in Google Scholar

Cook, Vivian. 2013. The language of the street. Applied Linguistics Review 4. 43–81. 10.1515/applirev-2013-0003 Search in Google Scholar

Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language variation and identity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511755064 Search in Google Scholar

Creese, Angela & Adrian Blackledge. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94(1). 103–115. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x Search in Google Scholar

Dong, Jie. 2017. The sociolinguistics of voice in globalising China . London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315756387 Search in Google Scholar

Dong, Jie & Jan Blommaert. 2013. Global informal learning environments and their effects on the Chinese middle class. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies , 111. 1–15. Search in Google Scholar

Duong, Jacky Au & Frauke Zeller. 2017. Tracking the imagined audience: A case study on Nike ’s use of Twitter for B2C interaction. First Monday 22. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/6607/6190 (accessed 8 June 2017). 10.5210/fm.v22i5.6607 Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research . London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078 Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Shuang. 2012. Commodification of place, consumption of identity: The sociolinguistic construction of a ‘global village’ in rural China. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(3). 336–357. 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2012.00534.x Search in Google Scholar

García, Ofelia & Angel M. Y. Lin. 2016. Translanguaging in bilingual education. In Ofelia García, et al. (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education , 1–20. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_9-1 . Search in Google Scholar

García, Ofelia & Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137385765 Search in Google Scholar

Goodman, David S. G. 2014. Class in contemporary China . Cambridge, UK: Polity. Search in Google Scholar

Gorter, Durk (ed.). 2006. Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism . Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 10.21832/9781853599170 Search in Google Scholar

Gorter, Durk & Jasone Cenoz. 2015. Translanguaging and linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape 1(1). 54–74. 10.1075/ll.1.1-2.04gor Search in Google Scholar

Han, Jin. 2014. Chengshi xiaofei kongjian [Consumption Space, Urban Design] . Nanjing: Southeast University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Heller, Monica. 2003. Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4). 473–498. 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00238.x Search in Google Scholar

Heller, Monica. 2010. The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology 39. 101–114. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104951 Search in Google Scholar

Herzfeld, Michael. 2010. Engagement, gentrification, and the neoliberal hijacking of history. Current Anthropology 51. S259–S267. 10.1086/653420 Search in Google Scholar

Jaworski, Adam. 2010. Borrowed genres and the language market. in Crispin Thurlow & Adam Jaworski (eds.), Tourism Discourse: Language and Global Mobility , 49–90. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

Jaworski, Adam & Crispin Thurlow. 2009. Taking an elitist stance: Ideology and the discursive production of social distinction. in Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives , 195–226. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0009 Search in Google Scholar

Jaworski, Adam & Crispin Thurlow. 2010. Semiotic Landscapes: Language, image, space . London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Search in Google Scholar

Johnstone, Barbara. 2011. Dialect enregisterment in performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(5). 657–679. 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00512.x Search in Google Scholar

Jufferman, Kasper. 2013. Multimodality and audiences: Local languaging in the Gambian linguistic landscape. Sociolinguistic Studies 6. 259–285. 10.1558/sols.v6i2.259 Search in Google Scholar

Kelly-Holmes, Helen. 2017. Brand styling, enregisterment, and change: The case of C’est Cidre . in Nikolas Coupland, Janus Mortensen & Jacob Thøgersen (eds.), Style, mediation, and change: Sociolinguistic perspectives on talking media , 101–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190629489.003.0005 Search in Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther R. & Theo Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design . London: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Lamarre, Patricia. 2014. Bilingual winks and bilingual wordplay in Montreal’s linguistic landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 228. 131–151. 10.1515/ijsl-2014-0008 Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Tong-King. 2015. Translanguaging and visuality: Translingual practices in literary art. Applied Linguistics Review 6(4). 441–465. 10.1515/applirev-2015-0022 Search in Google Scholar

Leeman, Jennifer & Gabriella Modan. 2009. Commodified language in Chinatown: A contextualized approach to linguistic landscape. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(3). 332–362. 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00409.x Search in Google Scholar

Li, Wei. 2011. Moment analysis and trasnlanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43(5). 1222–1235. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035 Search in Google Scholar

Lou, Jia. 2007. Revitalizing Chinatown into a heterotopia: A geosemiotic analysis of shop signs in Washington DC’s Chinatown. Space and Culture 10(2). 170–194. 10.1177/1206331206298547 Search in Google Scholar

Michael-Luna, Sara & A. Suresh Canagarajah. 2007. Multilingual Academic Literacies: Pedagogical Foundations for Code Meshing in Primary and Higher Education. Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(1). 55–77. 10.1558/japl.v4i1.55 Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Daniel, et al. 2016. How the world changed social media . London: University College London Press. 10.2307/j.ctt1g69z35 Search in Google Scholar

Ostuji, Emi & Alastair Pennycook. 2015. Metrolingualism: The sociolinguistics of urban language life . New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Pennycook, Alastair. 2017. Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism . 1–14. doi: 10.1080/14790718.2017.1315810 . Search in Google Scholar

Rasinger, Sebastian M. 2014. Linguistic landscapes in Southern Carinthia (Austria). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35(6). 580–602. 10.1080/01434632.2014.889142 Search in Google Scholar

Scollon, Ron & Suzie Wong Scollon. 2003. Discourses in place: Language in the material world . London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203422724 Search in Google Scholar

Shohamy, Elana & Durk Gorter. 2009. Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery . eds. New York and London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203930960 Search in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23(3). 193–229. 10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 Search in Google Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin & Adam Jaworski. 2012. Elite mobilities: The semiotic landscapes of luxury and privilege. Social Semiotics 22(4). 487–516. 10.1080/10350330.2012.721592 Search in Google Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin & Adam Jaworski. 2017. Introducing elite discourse: The rhetoric of status, privilege, and power. Social Semiotics 27(3). 243–254. 10.1080/10350330.2017.1301789 Search in Google Scholar

Trinch, Shonna & Edward Snajdr. 2017. What the signs say: Gentrification and the disappearance of capitalism without distinction in Brooklyn. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(1). 64–89. 10.1111/josl.12212 Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Marianne & Angel M. Y. Lin. 2017. Translanguaging and named languages: Productive tension and desire. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism . doi: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1360243 . Search in Google Scholar

Wai, Albert Wing Tai. 2006. Place promotion and iconography in Shanghai’s Xintiandi. Habitat International 30(2). 245–260. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.02.002 Search in Google Scholar

Weibo, Sina. April 23, 2016. Tianzhenlan shi ruhe huode jintian de renqi de? [How does Naive Blue become so popular today?]. http://weibo.com/p/1001603967409387092412?from=page_100606_profile&wvr=6&mod=wenzhangmod (accessed 8 June, 2017). Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Hai. 2011. Chengshi gengxin de kongjian shengchan yu kongjian xushi [Space production and space narrative of city renovation: The case of Shanghai]. Urban Management 2. 10–15. Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Hai, Xiangming Chen & Xiaohua Zhong. 2016. Commercial development from below: The resilience of local shops in Shanghai. in Sharon Zukin, Philip Kasintz & Xiangming Chen (eds.), Global cities, local streets: Everyday diversity from New York to Shanghai , 59–89. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315776194-3 Search in Google Scholar

Zelizer, Barbie. 1995. Reading the past against the grain: The shape of memory studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12. 214–239. Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, Di. 2016. Understanding middle class consumers from the justification of taste: A case study of Beijing. The Journal of Chinese Sociology 3. 1–14. 10.1186/s40711-016-0035-0 Search in Google Scholar

Zukin, Sharon. 1991. Landscapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World . Berkeley and Oxford: University of California Press. Search in Google Scholar

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

Manage consent

Details cookies, important margin product information.

CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 65% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs, FX or any of our other products work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

Cookie policy

Our websites use cookies to offer you a better browsing experience by enabling, optimising, and analysing site operations, as well as to provide personalised ad content and allow you to connect to social media. By choosing “Accept all” you consent to the use of cookies and the related processing of personal data. Select “Manage consent” to manage your consent preferences. You can change your preferences or retract your consent at any time via the cookie policy page. Please view our cookie policy and our privacy policy .

Case Study: Enhancing portfolio performance with long-term options

Koen Hoorelbeke

Options Strategist

Summary:  This case study explores how using long-term options instead of direct stock purchases can enhance investment efficiency. It features a fictitious investor, Sarah, who utilizes a two-year call option on Apple Inc. to control more shares with less capital. This approach offers reduced capital outlay, enhanced potential returns, and flexibility in managing investments, demonstrating a strategic advantage for traditional investors.

Introduction :

Investing in stocks through traditional buy-and-hold strategies is a proven path to wealth accumulation. However, savvy investors are continually exploring more efficient methods to maximize their returns and manage risks. Long-term options offer a strategic advantage by providing the potential for high returns with less capital compared to direct stock purchases. In this case study, we will explore how long-term options can be utilized to optimize investment returns through the experience of a fictitious investor, Sarah, who is looking to refine her investment strategy.

Important note: the strategies and examples provided in this article are purely for educational purposes. They are intended to assist in shaping your thought process and should not be replicated or implemented without careful consideration. Every investor or trader must conduct their own due diligence and take into account their unique financial situation, risk tolerance, and investment objectives before making any decisions. Remember, investing in the stock market carries risk, and it's crucial to make informed decisions.

Background:

Meet Sarah , a seasoned buy-and-hold investor with a diversified portfolio. Her strategy traditionally involves purchasing blue-chip stocks and holding them for long periods, relying on their stable dividends and steady appreciation. However, Sarah is eager to optimize her investment strategy to enhance her returns and manage her capital more efficiently.

Sarah wants to maintain exposure to her favorite stock, Apple Inc., which she believes has strong long-term growth potential. However, she is also keen on preserving capital for other investment opportunities that might arise. Buying additional Apple shares outright would require a significant capital outlay.

Solution: Using long-term options:

Instead of purchasing additional shares of Apple directly, Sarah decides to invest in long-term options. She chooses a call option with a strike price close to the current market price but expiring in two years. This option gives her control over a much larger amount of stock than she could afford to buy outright.

Financial comparison:

• Cost: Apple is trading at $150 per share.
• Sarah considers buying 100 shares, requiring a capital outlay of $15,000.
• Cost: A two-year call option with a $150 strike price costs $3 per share (option premium).
• Sarah buys 10 contracts (each contract representing 100 shares), controlling 1,000 shares.
• Total cost: $3,000 (10 contracts x 100 shares x $3 premium).
• Sarah spends only $3,000 to control 1,000 shares, compared to $15,000 to own 100 shares outright, freeing up $12,000 for other investments.
• If Apple stock rises to $200 over the next two years, the value of her options would significantly increase. Her options could potentially be worth $50 per share (the difference between the market price and the strike price), equating to a total of $50,000 (1,000 shares x $50), minus the initial $3,000 premium paid.
• If Apple's stock price falls, Sarah's maximum risk is the $3,000 premium paid, compared to a potentially larger loss had she purchased the stock outright.
• Sarah retains the flexibility to exercise her options to acquire the shares if beneficial or to sell the options as they appreciate in value. She can also let them expire if the stock underperforms, minimizing her losses.

Conclusion:

By integrating long-term options into her buy-and-hold strategy, Sarah efficiently leverages her capital, enhances her potential returns, and retains flexibility in her investment approach. This case study exemplifies how long-term options can be a powerful tool for traditional investors looking to maximize their financial strategies without compromising their long-term investment goals.

Latest Market Insights

Case study: Smartly reducing your investment while maintaining market exposure

Welcome to your guide on long-term options for strategic portfolio management

Understanding long-term options: a strategic tool for long-term investors

Understanding long-term options: How to buy and manage long-term options on the Saxo platform

Technical Update - Gold resuming bullish trend but struggling for momentum. Silver eyeing 30 – again. Will it reach it?

Global Market Quick Take: Europe – 13 May 2024

Is US data finally slowing down?

China/Hong Kong Market Pulse: Barbell Tactical Trades on High Dividend and Technology Names

Quarterly Outlook 2024 Q2

2024: The wasted year

Macro: It’s all about elections and keeping status quo

Markets are driven by election optimism, overshadowing growing debt and liquidity concerns. The 2024 elections loom large, but economic fundamentals and debt issues warrant cautious investment.

FX: The rate cut race shifts into high gear

As US economic slowdown hints at a shift away from exceptionalism, USD faces downside with looming Fed cuts. AUD and NZD set to outperform as their rate cuts lag. JPY gains on carry unwind bets and BOJ pivot.

Equities: The AI and obesity rally is defying gravity

Amid AI and obesity drug excitement, equities see varied prospects: neutral on overvalued US stocks, negative on Japan due to JPY risks, positive on Europe. European defence stocks gain appeal.

Fixed income: Keep calm, seize the moment

With the economic slowdown, quality assets will gain favour, especially sovereign bonds up to 5 years. Central banks' potential rate cuts in Q2 suggest extending duration, despite policy and inflation concerns.

Commodities: Is the correction over?

Commodities poised for rebound. The "Year of the Metal" boosts gold and silver, copper awaits rate cuts. Grains may recover, natural gas stabilises. Gold targets $2,300-$2,500/oz, copper's breakout could signal growth.

You can access both of our platforms from a single Saxo account. Preview platform Open Account

Disclaimer The Saxo Bank Group entities each provide execution-only service and access to Analysis permitting a person to view and/or use content available on or via the website. This content is not intended to and does not change or expand on the execution-only service. Such access and use are at all times subject to (i) The Terms of Use; (ii) Full Disclaimer; (iii) The Risk Warning; (iv) the Rules of Engagement and (v) Notices applying to Saxo News & Research and/or its content in addition (where relevant) to the terms governing the use of hyperlinks on the website of a member of the Saxo Bank Group by which access to Saxo News & Research is gained. Such content is therefore provided as no more than information. In particular no advice is intended to be provided or to be relied on as provided nor endorsed by any Saxo Bank Group entity; nor is it to be construed as solicitation or an incentive provided to subscribe for or sell or purchase any financial instrument. All trading or investments you make must be pursuant to your own unprompted and informed self-directed decision. As such no Saxo Bank Group entity will have or be liable for any losses that you may sustain as a result of any investment decision made in reliance on information which is available on Saxo News & Research or as a result of the use of the Saxo News & Research. Orders given and trades effected are deemed intended to be given or effected for the account of the customer with the Saxo Bank Group entity operating in the jurisdiction in which the customer resides and/or with whom the customer opened and maintains his/her trading account. Saxo News & Research does not contain (and should not be construed as containing) financial, investment, tax or trading advice or advice of any sort offered, recommended or endorsed by Saxo Bank Group and should not be construed as a record of our trading prices, or as an offer, incentive or solicitation for the subscription, sale or purchase in any financial instrument. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, would be considered as a marketing communication under relevant laws.

Please read our disclaimers: Notification on Non-Independent Investment Research (https://www.home.saxo/legal/niird/notification) Full disclaimer (https://www.home.saxo/legal/disclaimer/saxo-disclaimer) Full disclaimer  (https://www.home.saxo/legal/saxoselect-disclaimer/disclaimer)

Your browser cannot display this website correctly.

Our website is optimised to be browsed by a system running iOS 9.X and on desktop IE 10 or newer. If you are using an older system or browser, the website may look strange. To improve your experience on our site, please update your browser or system.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

When Is the Best Time to Work Out?

It’s an age-old question. But a few recent studies have brought us closer to an answer.

By Alexander Nazaryan

What is the best time of day to exercise?

It’s a straightforward question with a frustrating number of answers, based on research results that can be downright contradictory.

The latest piece of evidence came last month from a group of Australian researchers, who argued that evening was the healthiest time to break a sweat, at least for those who are overweight. Their study looked at 30,000 middle-aged people with obesity and found that evening exercisers were 28 percent less likely to die of any cause than those who worked out in the morning or afternoon.

“We were surprised by the gap,” said Angelo Sabag, an exercise physiologist at the University of Sydney who led the study. The team expected to see a benefit from evening workouts, but “we didn’t think the risk reduction would be as pronounced as it was.”

So does that mean that evening swimmers and night runners had the right idea all along?

“It’s not settled,” said Juleen Zierath, a physiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. “It’s an emerging area of research. We haven’t done all the experiments. We’re learning a lot every month.”

No single study can dictate when you should exercise. For many people, the choice comes down to fitness goals, work schedules and plain old preferences. That said, certain times of day may offer slight advantages, depending on what you hope to achieve.

The case for morning exercise

According to a 2022 study , morning exercise may be especially beneficial for heart health. It may also lead to better sleep .

And when it comes to weight loss, there have been good arguments made for morning workouts. Last year, a study published in the journal Obesity found that people who exercised between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. had a lower body mass index than counterparts who exercised in the afternoon or at night, though it did not track them over time, unlike the Australian study, which followed participants for an average of eight years.

Of course, the biggest argument for morning exercise may be purely practical. “For a lot of people, the morning is more convenient,” said Shawn Youngstedt, an exercise science professor at Arizona State University. Even if rising early to work out can be challenging at first , morning exercise won’t get in the way of Zoom meetings, play dates or your latest Netflix binge.

The case for afternoon exercise

A few small studies suggest that the best workout time, at least for elite athletes, might be the least convenient for many of us.

Body temperature, which is lower in the morning but peaks in late afternoon, plays a role in athletic performance. Several recent small studies with competitive athletes suggest that lower body temperature reduces performance (though warm-ups exercises help counter that) and afternoon workouts help them play better and sleep longer .

If you have the luxury of ample time, one small New Zealand study found that it can help to nap first. As far as the rest of us are concerned, a Chinese study of 92,000 people found that the best time to exercise for your heart was between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

“The main difference is our population,” Dr. Sabag said. While his study was restricted to obese people, the Chinese study was not. “Individuals with obesity may be more sensitive to the time-of-day effects of exercise,” he said.

The case for evening exercise

This latest study may not settle the debate, but it certainly suggests that those struggling with obesity might benefit from a later workout.

Exercise makes insulin more effective at lowering blood sugar levels, which in turn fends off weight gain and Type 2 diabetes, a common and devastating consequence of obesity.

“In the evening, you are most insulin resistant,” Dr. Sabag said. “So if you can compensate for that natural change in insulin sensitivity by doing exercise,” he explained, you can lower your blood glucose levels, and thus help keep diabetes and cardiovascular disease at bay.

One persistent concern about evening exercise is that vigorous activity can disturb sleep. However, some experts have argued that these concerns have been overstated.

The case that it may not matter

While many of these studies are fascinating, none of them is definitive. For one thing, most are simply showing a correlation between exercise times and health benefits, not identifying them as the cause.

“The definitive study would be to actually randomize people to different times,” Dr. Youngstedt said, which would be phenomenally expensive and difficult for academics.

One thing public health experts do agree on is that most Americans are far too sedentary. And that any movement is good movement.

“Whenever you can exercise,” Dr. Sabag urged. “That is the answer.”

In a recent edition of his newsletter that discussed the Australian study, Arnold Schwarzenegger — bodybuilder, actor, former governor — seemed to agree. He cited a 2023 study suggesting that there really isn’t any difference in outcomes based on which time of day you exercise. In which case, it’s all about what works best for you.

“I will continue to train in the morning,” the former Mr. Universe wrote. “It’s automatic for me.”

Alexander Nazaryan is a science and culture writer who prefers to run in the early evening.

Let Us Help You Pick Your Next Workout

Looking for a new way to get moving we have plenty of options..

What is the best time of day to exercise? A few recent studies have brought us closer to an answer .

Sprinting, at least for short distances, can be a great way to level up your workout routine .

Cycling isn’t just fun. It can also deliver big fitness gains with the right gear and strategy.

VO2 max has become ubiquitous in fitness circles. But what does it measure  and how important is it to know yours?

Is your workout really working for you? Take our quiz to find out .

Pick the Right Equipment With Wirecutter’s Recommendations

Want to build a home gym? These five things can help you transform your space  into a fitness center.

Transform your upper-body workouts with a simple pull-up bar  and an adjustable dumbbell set .

Choosing the best  running shoes  and running gear can be tricky. These tips  make the process easier.

A comfortable sports bra can improve your overall workout experience. These are the best on the market .

Few things are more annoying than ill-fitting, hard-to-use headphones. Here are the best ones for the gym  and for runners .