Acting My Age

     This past weekend I went to New Hampshire for the holiday with family and friends. I had not seen my friends, two of which were 3-5 years younger than me, for quite a while. The moment we saw each other we were already hyped up and excited to see each other. Everyone got settled down into their own picnic areas and they soon approached me to hang out. The conversation usually always starts with how old I am and how old I forgot they were.

     “Oh, my God, I haven't seen you in so long! Wait, are you twenty now?”

     “Actually, I'm twenty-one,” I responded.

     “No way! You're so old! I never realize it when I'm talking to you.”

     I noticed that we got comfortable the moment we began speaking, choosing colloquial words and modern jargon that is characteristic of an established friendship. Our past contributed to a level of trust and intimacy that did not require formalities. We belonged to a speech community which contained dialogue developed by our shared cultural dynamics. Regardless of age, it was the commonality in our discourse that guided the interaction.

     The dynamics between the same friends and my sister were different from mine. They are much closer in age; however, their overall vibe was awkward and was more of an interaction between acquaintances. The dialogue was blunt and contained no depth; however I could still discern that they belonged to the same speech community – how? The dynamics changed again when they were speaking with an adult. Instantaneously, their tones became much softer and more reserved.

     I realized that, like discourse communities, speech communities needed specific requirements as well. I think the most important aspect would be culture because with culture comes certain customs based on age and gender. The linguistic rules we shared were subconscious and absolute. Between friends it was alright to be ourselves and to say whatever came to mind. When speaking with an adult, our tone adjusted based on age alone and the level of intimacy played no factor. I can see how speech communities could be seen as a singular unit such as New York City as well as a collection of speakers borrowing from each others' dialects (as mentioned in the Swales reading). If you look at the speech of the city as a whole, then we would be looking at the American culture and derive American social behavior – a single unit. If you look at the citizens themselves then we would be looking at different social interactions based on different beliefs and cultures – a collection of speakers living in one place. I agree that speech communities “absorb people into the general fabric” because it is a combination of adopting social behavior and applying patterns of use as social situations require.