Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

SOCIAL NETWORKS IN A RURAL SETTING
network model with the social class model. They argue that the structure and
social function of both strong and weak network types needs to be considered
in order to do this. They feel, however, that analyses of variation based on
social class are limited when the subgroups are economically marginal, not
distributed evenly with respect to class, or live in territorially well defined
neighbourhoods (Milroys 1992: 6).
The original (1980) work has been refined somewhat in this paper. The
Milroys acknowledge that some studies have shown that close-knit networks
are found mostly in rural areas nowadays, with urban (specially middle-class)
areas having more loose-knit networks, with impersonal ties and greater social
distance.
In any close-knit network, a weakening of the structure will allow more
outside innovation and influence. While the Milroys claim that network
analysis is effective in explaining the effects of strong ties, they concede that it
cannot easily demonstrate the effects of weak ties using quantitative methods.
They agree however, with Granovetter (1973), who claims it is weak links
which are the paths along which innovations travel between groups, and so it
is at the level of theory that the notion of weak ties is most useful.
The theoretical implications of the weak tie model are numerous.
Mewett (1982) argues that class differences in small communities begin to
emerge over time as the proportion of multiplex relations declines. This
suggests the development of a sociolinguistic model with two levels: one
where small-scale network structures have individuals embedded and acting
‘with intent’ in their daily lives, and the other where large-scale social class
structures determine relationships of power at the institutional level (Milroys
1992: 16). This model proposes local stability and cohesion at the network
level versus overall fragmentation and conflict at the social class level, and
that the two types of analysis are in fact complementary. The Milroys do
admit that the model is more suited to urban communities (p. 17).
At this point the Milroys introduce Thomas Højrup’s (1983) concept of
‘Life Modes’, and attempt to integrate it into their model, together with social
class. It will be useful to summarise Højrup’s paper at this point, before going
on to examine how the Milroys have incorporated it into their model. Højrup’s
(1983) notion of ‘Life Modes’ was developed in Denmark for social
anthropology, but can be useful for sociolinguistics. In this model, all people
belong to one of three modes of production or ‘life modes’:
135