Through examining the role of restricted lexis and jargon within occupational settings like the medical profession, one could argue that language is governed by occupation. Furthermore, Drew and Heritage’s Inferential Frameworks also suggest that communication is influenced by institutional values and hierarchies. However, one must note that the influence of occupation on language is not long lasting, often the features used within occupational settings differ from the language an individual uses in everyday life. Occupation also appears to have little effect on aspects of language outside lexicon. Factors like region appear to influence dialect and accent more. Ultimately it appears that the influence of occupation on language use is limited and not long lasting, neither is it the sole influence on a person’s language.
The presence of restricted lexis and jargon within an individual’s vocabulary suggests that a person’s language is determined by their occupation. Jargon is specialist vocabulary that is only used in a specific occupation - this means that for most occupations understanding jargon is essential in the work environment. The inaccessibility of jargon to people outside of the profession also supports the idea that occupation determines language as a key way to identify a member of the profession is through their understanding of language features specific to that profession. An example of the importance of jargon within occupations is Medical Profession Slang. Research conducted by Adam Fox (2002) identified the technical and scientific lexis used by medical professionals like the noun ‘chromosome’, along with slang like ‘Code Brown’ used to refer to an incontinence related emergency. These language features are examples of restricted lexis that are essential in the traumatic fast-paced nature of hospitals. Here, phrases like ‘code brown’ are used by medical professionals to communicate internally and efficiently. These features are not used outside the medical profession so this suggests that a person’s occupation requires them to change their language. However, one can also argue that absence of these language features in a person’s everyday vocabulary implies that occupation has a limited and weak influence on language use. If language were solely determined by occupation then people would use jargon in all settings, not only occupational ones.
The notion of occupation determining language use is supported by Inferential Frameworks (Drew and Heritage 1992). Drew and Heritage argued that workplaces were characterised by values and hierarchies which affect language use. Members of these institutions shared implicit ways of thinking, communicating and behaving, the values of these institutions govern the way people used language. For example swearing is often deemed unprofessional in a corporate setting as it does not correspond with an institution’s inferential framework. Drew and Heritage also argued that power was shown in these settings through communication within the institution. Those with more power used more professional lexis and conversational asymmetry to mark their authority e.g. through enforcing the turn taking rule. The multiple characteristics of occupational discourse proposed by this theory suggest that a person’s language is determined by their occupation as the inferential frameworks within the place they work prevent them from using language in ways that conflict with institutional values.
Nevertheless, the many features of occupational language do not prove that language is determined by occupation. In fact, not all features of occupational discourses are forms of restricted lexis, neither are they language features only used within occupational settings. For example, features of institutional talk like the enforcement of the turn taking rule is also used in wider society like in family settings or other situations where there are power imbalances. Koester (2004) argued that Phatic Speech was a feature of occupational discourse - this is where language is used to build connections and enhance work relationships, it has no purpose outside social relations. However, Phatic Speech is also used outside the workplace as it is very similar to politeness theory where language is used to protect people’s positive and negative faces. The act of using language to strengthen social connections is not solely used in the workplace. This suggests that features of occupational discourse are also features of wider societal discourses. This implies that it is not a person’s occupation that influences their language but rather their context as language features differ and sometimes remain the same within various contexts.
Furthermore, occupation does not appear to be the sole influence on language. Factors like region appear to also have a profound influence on the way people speak. For example, the Geordie dialect from Newcastle consists of phonological features like glottal reinforcements for consonants /k/ and /t/, lexical features like use of the verb ‘gan’ for ‘go’, and grammatical features like the non-standard use of the second person past tense verb ‘was’. These features show that the region which a person comes from appears to influence their language. Furthermore, dialectal impacts on language even appear to override occupational influences as it is unlikely that a person’s dialect will be as dependent on the changing context as occupational language is.
Ultimately, evidence from Adam Fox’s study into Medical Professional Slang, along with Drew and Heritage’s inferential frameworks seem to suggest that occupation affects how a person uses language. However, occupation does not appear to be the sole influence on language as seen with the context-dependent nature of occupational language and its temporary ability to change how a person speaks. Other factors like region appear to have a more profound influence on language use than occupational discourses
