Search

Discusses the fundamental aspects of verbal communication and analyzes its functions in terms of social needs. Takes an historical perspective to distinguish different levels of social development characterized by different communication requirements and stages of language evolution. From these premises, it argues for a sociocultural approach to language teaching. (MES)

This section comments on the article, Levels of Analysis in Sociolinguistic Explanation: Bilingual Code Switching, Social Relations, and Domain Therapy, by L. B. Breitborde. There is no a priori rule for setting up one sociolinguistic model as superior to another. The only recommendation is to avoid the useless multiplicity of theories and, where possible, to base models on already existing theories. A comparative judgment between two models will have to wait until later, and must be based on their explanatory capacity and the extent to which they can promote further research. Breitborde presents two studies in support of his model. One of them theoretical and the other as verification. The work of John J. Gumperz based on statuses is rather limiting. The study on code switching seems more suitable. It concerns alternation between Kru and English in a Methodist service in a town in Liberia. Breitborde's model functions rather well in this context. But the use of role theory would have given equally satisfactory results and, would have revealed the problem of the individual, whose role enactments would have to correspond simultaneously to the role of both the Kru tribe and the civilized elite.

The study of language in society may touch upon almost everything in man's world. How can the scope of an integrative approach be defined and given directions? This article proposes, as first approximation to such a definition and goal, the means of speech in human communities, and their meanings to those who use them. Means of speech, first, as objects of description, for identification and analysis. Means of speech, second, as objects of explanation, regarding their origins, development and disuse, as part of the maintenance and transformation of sociocultural orders. Their meanings because relevant in sociolinguistic description, as in ordinary linguistic description, involves form-meaning covariation, a sociolinguistic commutation test, as it were, sociolinguistic signs of which ordinary linguistic features enter into one side, social meanings to the other. Their meanings, also, because questions of function are fundamental to sociolinguistic research as a matter of both of empirical validity and of social responsibility. The main interest of this paper is the sociology of language, that found its first systematic exponent in Fishman. In his Sociology of Language, Fishman clearly outlines his argument in terms of action theory when he talks about linguistic interaction.

This article discusses concepts and problems associated with international languages. Some languages take more than one function upon themselves, having cultural and integrative functions toward other languages. These languages are called international languages and often used for functions such as: service language for certain international purposes like diplomacy and trade; to provide a linguistic medium for cultural exchange among communities; to make cultural integrative contributions to people speaking minor languages. Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese languages fail to serve such functions, thus, not considered as international languages. On the contrary, German having developed the third function, shows a remarkable competitivity against other international languages. Therefore, only three languages enjoy a full status of internationality: French, English and Russian. French is the language predominating the past and spoken in the territories of France, Belgium and Switzerland and Quebec province of Canada. English is the language of our times and is spoken in Great Britain, U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Oceania and other smaller bilingual nations. Russian is the language prevailing in an area with diverging social and economic structures, specifically in Greater Russia and other nations covered in the former Soviet Union.

The researches conducted by the author into the causes of the adherence to communism in Italy enabled him to outline a typology of the forces that form the basis of such an adherence. All the generical forces, called "traumatic" may be traced to the foundation of the adherence to every movement of revolt. But the historical continuity of a revolution calls for the guidance of an "elite", the ability of which may be repressed by an insufficient circulation of values among the classes. Such forces are known as "paretian" The peculiarity of the workers' revolution consists in the isolation of the proletariat, inside and outside the factory. Therefore, there arises a collective "Super Ego" of class to which can be transferred not only the poorer and less qualified traumatic components but also the more skilled as understood by Pareto. Thus, there arise synthetic forces called "dialectic" The answer to such forces can be given by the trade unions: it results into the dissolution of the traumatic components and the participation in social guidance. But if this effect is not achieved because the workers are slow in declaring their own autonomic elite, the Communist Party proposes its own elite, "carismatical" and bureaucratic, for the workers' guidance. The Super Ego of the class becomes the Super Ego of the class party. Those subjected to the traumatic forces feel the attraction of such a Super Ego while the groups subjected to paretian forces easily support the stronger group. The social framework within which communism can develop is therefore that, in which industrial development has a slackened rhythm and in which by force of attraction, the pre-industrial forces, little by little, come into contact with those industrial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]