A socio-pragmatic comparative study of

2.4. The Birth of Sociolinguistics 
Sociolinguistic theory is the offspring of the process of transition from the so-called 
structuralism to contextualism. In contrast to linguistic theory, sociolinguistic theory 
emphasizes the appropriateness of verbal message in context. Gumperz and Hymes 
(1972) argue that this theory posits beyond the grammar a level of rule-governed verbal 
behavior that relates linguistic and social constraints. Doughty, et al. (1972), however, 
assume a more radical view in this regard. They argue that the constraints upon what we 
say and the way in which we say it are of a social origin. They even go on to admit that 
"speakers do not have a direct acquaintance with language any more than they do with 
society. What they actually experience is the linguistic manifestation of relationships" 
(Doughty, et al., 1972: 83). 
The interest in sociolinguistics or the so-called social aspects of language stimulated the 
linguists to go beyond the mere structural analysis of grammatical systems. They, as a 
result, concentrated on the language use by human groups, social strata, geographical 
regions, etc. They began to entertain themselves with the socially-patterned variation in 
linguistic behavior and the identification of those factors that affect and predict such 
variations. Sociolinguists turned out to be considerate of variable rules for the 

---

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 
16
description of those linguistic forms that were socially loaded. This caused linguists to 
question the validity of Chomsky's linguistic competence and any other descriptive 
method that ruled out any concern for variation and diversity in language. The flaws of 
the notion of linguistic competence paved the way for the birth of the more 
comprehensive notion of communicative competence.