Sociolinguistics Essay Example

Sociolinguistics Essay The book discuses topics on sociolinguistics such as differences in language, language diversity, code-switching, prototype, speech, anthropological linguistics, linguistic and social disparity, gender difference and educational inferences of sociolinguistics. This second edition added up new segment on civility and courtesy, accommodation and samples. He also opened out the discussion about sex differences, association between language and thought and speech. As discussed in his first edition, language variety, speech as a social interaction and its quantitative study keep on.This is a very intriguing book. Hudson makes several statements but conflict with what he wants to articulate. For example, on page 11, he says â€Å"no two speakers have the same language, because no two speakers have the same experience of language† (Hudson, 1996)and â€Å"Effectively, the ‘socio-‘of ‘sociolinguistics is redundant.† This is somewhat in clash with his convention al conception about language, assortment, dialect and speech communities in his second chapter. He disputes the subsistence of them and can’t be used as a theoretical constructs.In some topics, the association of the topics is not intact but rather same topics can be found anywhere within the book. The author seems to â€Å"beat around the bush† where ideas are circling back on itself. The author argue the work of both Labov and Chomsky without clear explanations about what he is trying to say and what he want reader to understand. His arguments about variance of his idea against Labov and Chomsky are incomprehensible arguments. Specifically, his explanations about the section on quantitative study of speech are very poor. In addition, the graphs being used are poorly labeled or unlabeled. In explaining the authors ideas, there’s no precision and exactness. In page 16, For instance, he says â€Å"As for morphology, this is left out altogether, which again makes for ease of learning†¦.† (Hudson, 1996) .A reader can’t grasp how morphology has been left out altogether. There are so many explanations in the book without clear thoughts and sometimes careless.The significant role of the book can be taken seriously in the first two chapters of the seven chapters. For example, he makes significant arguments about varieties of language. He says, in pages 23-24,   that language should be taken into account as â€Å"a phenomenon including all languages of the world and then stresses that there is variety among languages is difficult to hunt down (Hudson, 1996). However, he concludes that varieties are not present. Rather, aspects of language may vary. People have different ways on how they use their language. People have different items on how they utter their language. Every people have a â€Å"part of the set† in the items they have in their language.In chapters three through six, he makes a significant notion of severa l concepts of sociolinguistics. According to Hudson, sociolinguistics deals with the study of language in relation with the society. I find very interesting in chapter three – Language, culture and thought. Specifically, his arguments about prototypes and sexism in the language system are very good which I found to be attractive. It can give details about indistinct boundaries of concepts where critical feature cannot. Language maintenance and alterations are very difficult to analyze. However, due to Hudson’s prototype theory which asserts that it is the groundwork for Fishman’s speech domain concept, the evaluation and investigation of language preservation and modification becomes is being facilitated.Chapter Four, â€Å"Speech as Social Interaction,† is difficult to analyze the ideas presented. Topics under the subject lack thorough discussion on the recent studies on speech acts, speech events and dialogue analysis.I was attracted oh how the author c ould encourage the accuracy of his work by using some statistical methods such as sampling, structured interview and by using variables. Researches conducted by the author add to the reliability of the authors ideas. The concept about sampling is not discussed thoroughly in the book even it does not appear. However, sampling can be implicitly understood in the book. Chapter 5, a quantitative study of speech, where discusses selection of â€Å"different types of housing and a range of social status†¦.† (Hudson, 2007, p.60) can be used to implicitly understand sampling, a selection process of different units from a population, called the sample, to make an inference from the whole population. In other words, it is a process of determining characteristics or parameters of the whole population by selecting a suitable representative part of it (Mugo, 2004).In addition, I found interested on how the author used structured interview for he could make conclusions from a certain research. From the book, I know that this kind of interview, where an evaluator asks same questions to every interviewee offering them the identical responses, is very efficient in data gathering (ERIC/AE Staff, 2007). He emphasizes that structured interview â€Å"have used fewer than a hundred speakers and increasing the number of speakers tends to be counterproductive the analytical (Hudson, 2007, p. 160).The use of the quantitative variable by the author helps to capture the thought about quantitative difference. Linguistic variable refers to â€Å"a set of related dialect forms all of which mean the same thing and which correlate with some social grouping in the speech community† (Britain, 2005).Although the book is used a course text, it must have suggested reading, projects or suggestions for additional information for readers to know. Also, the bibliography and index is poor in construction.The book, first, is a very good example resource for people who want to have background about sociolinguistics, the language with a society and the society with a language. However, I would like to stress some main points. Since the focus of the is mainly on theoretical aspects, it is not best recommended for those who want to take practical research. This could be a great resource about sociolinguistics if it will provide readers the clear and thorough understanding about the subject matter. Another, I like on how the author organized his ideas by making conclusions after a certain topic. The conclusion allows me to check the accuracy of his idea. Also, it gave me the importance of each topic discussed.

Ching vs. Salinas Case Digest Essays

Ching vs. Salinas Case Digest Essays Ching vs. Salinas Case Digest Essay Ching vs. Salinas Case Digest Essay CASE TITLE: Jessie Ching v. William Salinas, Sr. , William Salinas, Jr. , Josephine Salinas, Jennifer Salinas, Alonto Solaiman Salle, John Eric Salinas, Noel Yabut (Board of Directors and Officers of WILAWARE PROUDCT CORPORATION) PETITIONER’S CLAIMS: Petitioner’s insisted that his works are covered by Sections 172.1 and 172.2 of the Intellectual Property Code and that the copyright certificates issued by the National Library are prima facie evidence of its validity, citing the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals in one of its cases. He claims that the IPC provides in no uncertain terms that copyright protection automatically attaches to a work by the sole fact of its creation, irrespective of its mode or form of expression, as well as of its content, quality or purpose. As such, the petitioner insists, notwithstanding the classification of the works as either literary and/or artistic, the said law, likewise, encompasses works which may have a bearing on the utility aspect to which the petitioner’s utility designs were classified. Moreover, according to the petitioner, what the Copyright Law protects is the author’s intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is one with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on n industrial scale. The petitioner also maintains that the law does not provide that the intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for patent bars or invalidates its registration under the Law on Copyright. The test of protection for the aesthetic is not beauty and utility, but art for the copyright ad invention of original and ornamental design for design patents. In like manner, the fact that his utility designs or models for articles of manufacture have been expressed in the field of automotive parts, or based on something already in the public domain does not automatically remove them from the protection of the Law on Copyright. RESPONDENT’S CLAIMS: The respondents aver that the work of the petitioner is essentially a technical solution to the problem of wear and tear in automobiles. Such work, the respondents assert, is the subject of coyright under Section 172.1 of IPC. The respondents posit that a technical solution in any field of human activity which is novel may be the subject of a patent, and not of a copyright. They insist that the certificates issued by the National Library are only certifications that, at a point in time, a certain work was deposited in the said office. Furthermore, the registration of copyrights does not provide for automatic protection. The respondents aver that no copyright is said to exist if a party categorically questions its existence and legality citing Section 218. (b) of IPC. The respondents maintain that a copyright exists only when the work is covered by the protection of IPC. ISSUE: Whether or not the item sbject of the petition is considered work or art and thu s within the scope of the Copyright law protected by the Intellectual Property Code. RULING: Section 171. 10 provides that a â€Å"work of applied art† is an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article whether made by hand or produced on an industrial scale. But as gleaned from the specifications appended to the application for a copyright certificate filed by the petitioner, the said Leaf Spring Eye Bushing for Automobile is merely a utility model. Likewise, the Vehicle Bearing Cushion is illustrated as a bearing cushion. Plainly, these are not literary or artistic works. They are not intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain, or works of applied art. They are certainly not ornamental designs or one having decorative quality or value. The focus of copyright is the usefulness of the artistic design, and not its marketability. Works for applied art include all original pictorials, graphics and sculptural works that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful article regardless of factors such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and the potential availability of design patent protection. While works of applied art, original intellectual, literary and artistic works are copyrightable, useful articles and works of industrial design are not. A useful article may be copyrightable only if and only to the extent that such design incorporates pictorial, graphic or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article. There is no copyright protection for works of applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic features that cannot be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article. Functional components of useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have generally been denied copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful articles. In this case, the petitioner’s models are not works of applied art, nor artistic works. They are utility models useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value. A utility model is a technical solution to a problem in any field of human activity which is new ad industrially applicable. It may be, or may relate to, a product, or process or an improvement of any of the aforesaid. Essentially, a utility model refers to an invention in the mechanical field. A utility model varies from an invention which is available on at least three aspects: first, the requisite of â€Å" inventive step† in a patent for invention is not required; second, the maximum term of protection is only seven years compared to a patent which is twenty years, both reckoned from the date of the application; and third, the provisions on utility model dispense with its substantive examination and prefer for a less complicated system. The Leaf Spring Eye Bushing and Vehicle Bearing Cushion are not copyrightable, being not of the same kind and nature as the works enumerated in Section 172 of IPC. In Kho v. Court of Appeals and Pearl Dean (Phil), Inc. v. Shoemart, Inc, the Court ruled that â€Å"these copyright and patent rights are completely distinct and separate from one another, and the protection afforded by one cannot be used interchangeable to cover items or works that exclusively pertain to others. †