Dell Hymes and the Ethnography of Communication

Abstract

ed norms of a grammar, and that ‘we have reached a point at which the concept of grammar itself is that which needs to be transcended’ (Hymes, 1989: 434). Hymes argues for an understanding of speech that includes the diversity of the particular, not just the structured norms of an abstraction. Ultimately, Hymes rejects an understanding of language where it is permissible ‘to speak of the great role of language in general, but never language in particular; which leads to ‘a tendency to treat some linguistic particularities as inferior’ (Hymes 1989: 450). The idea of speech economy is significant in dealing with this tension between general models of language and language particularities because the metaphor of economy carries with it notions of the specific and general, the individual and the community. Conceptually, economy accounts for both individual actors and their aggregate conduct, and so the terms ‘speech economy’ and ‘means of speech’ maintain and make visible the tension between the particular speech of the individual and the aggregate speech economy. In this conception of ways of speaking, Hymes offers a theoretical basis for approaching language through the ethnography of communication. Hymes proposes a general method of ethnographic investigation through taxonomic, descriptive fieldwork (Hymes, 1972b). He is careful to point out, however, that ‘sociolinguistic fieldwork is not an end in itself’, but rather ‘a necessary part of the progress towards models (structural and generative) of sociolinguistic description, formulation of universal sets of features and relations, and explanatory theories’ (1972b: 43). Hymes advocates comparative, ethnographic taxonomies as the only way to explore and understand language systematically, because ‘communities differ significantly in the ways of speaking, in patterns of repertoire and switching, in the roles and meanings of speech. They indicate differences with regard to beliefs, values, reference groups, norms, and the like ... [I]ndividual accounts that individually pass without notice ... leap out when juxtaposed, as contrasts that require explanation’ (1972b: 42). Descriptive and taxonomical ethnographic work that allows for comparison between speech communities allows for systemic classification of ways of speaking in four traditional areas: ‘genetic classification’ of language descent; ‘areal classification’ of features spread through an area; ‘typological classification’ of structural features independent of genetic or areal nature; and usage/role classification (i.e. as a pidgin, trade language, etc). The sort of fieldwork Hymes advocates—ethnographies of communication—must ‘discover and explicate the competence that enables members of a community to conduct and interpret speech’ (Hymes, 1972b: 52). The exploration and documentation of communicative