interaction through language
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
1/195
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
2/195
Publishedquarterly by
Unesco
Vol. XXXVI, No.1, 1984
Editor:
Peter
Lengyel
Associateeditor:
Ali
Kazancigil
Design
and layout:
Jacques Carrasco
Picture
research:
Florence Bonjean
Correspondents
Bangkok: YogeshAtal
Beijing:LiXuekun
Belgrade:Balsa
Spadijer
Buenos
Aires:
Norberto Rodriguez
Bustamante
Canberra:Geoffrey Caldwell
Cologne:Alphons
Silbermann
Delhi:
Andr
Bcteille
Harare:ChenChimutengwende
Hong Kong:
Peter Chen
London: CyrilS.Smith
Mexico
City:
PabloGonzalez Casanova
Moscow: Marien Gapotchka
Nigeria:
Akinsola
Akiwowo
Ottawa:Paul Lamy
Singapore:
S.H .
Alatas
Tokyo: HiroshiOhta
Tunis:
A . Bouhdiba
UnitedStates: Gene
Lvons
Topics
of
forthcoming issues:
Industrial
democracy
Migration
Epistemology
of social
science
Coverand
right:
Semeiology
immediately
understandable
to all for
public areasandmass
events
has
becomea
professional
specialization.
Signsshownwere
devisedfor theTokyo
Olympics
of
1964
(front
cover andaboveright)andtheExpoMontreal of
1967
(below
right) to
form
the
elements of
modular
systems
which
allowfor differentcombinations of
symbols.
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
3/195
INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL s,
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
INTERACTION
TH ROUG H
LANGUAGE
T h o m a s L u c k m a n n
Yunus
D .
Desheriev
ShirleyBriceHeath
Dorothy
E .
Smith
Nelson E . Cabrai
Robert
L .
Cooper
Rainer Enrique H a m e l
Wolfdietrich
Hrtung
Jean-E.
Humblet
Mary-Louise
Kearney
L a c h m a n
M .
Khubchandani
Editorial:
the
ISS J
in Chinese, Arabic and Turkish
Sociolinguistictheory
and
research
Language
in
society
Social
progress
and
sociolinguistics
Oral andliterate
traditions
Textually
mediatedsocialorganization
Cases
Portuguese Creole
dialects
in
West
Africa
A framework
for the
description
of language
spread:
the
case
of
modern Hebrew
99
3
5
21
41
59
77
87
Socio-culturalconflictandbilingual
education:
the
case
of
the
Otomi Indians
inMexico 113
S o m e aspects
of
linguisticvariation
in one-language
societies
Applications
The
language problem in
internationalorganizations
Sociolinguistics
and language
teaching
Language
modernization in the developing world
Booksreceived
RecentUnescopublications
129
143
157
169
189
191
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
4/195
Editorial:
The
ISSJ
in
Chinese,
Arabic
and
Turkish
W e are most
pleased
to
announce
that,
following
successful
negotiations
conducted
between the
editor
ofthis
periodical
and the
staff ofSocial Sciences
in
China
headed by
Ding Weizhi in
Beijing
in M a y 1983,a
full
edition
of the
ISSJ
in
Chinese
is to
appear
quarterly
beginning in 1984.
T h e Chinese edition will go underthe
titleofGuoji shehui kexue
zazhi,
editedby
Feng Shize from
offices
atGulouxidajieJia
158,Beijing.Itwillbetranslatedand produc
ed
under
the
general
responsibility
of
Social
Sciences
in
China,
a
periodical
issuedbi
monthly
inChinese and
quarterly
inEnglish
by
the Chinese A c a d e m y ofSocialSciences.
T h efirst number, corresponding to ISSJ,
N o . 91 (Images
ofWorld
Society),
is to be
followed by N o s . 92(Sporting Life) and 93
( M a n
in
Ecosystems). Starting
in 1985,all
ISSJissuesfor the previous year are to appear
regularly
inChinese.
Subscriptions
toGuoji
shehui kexue
zazhi
can be placed through
its
editorial
officesat the
rates
s h o w nin thetable.
T h e
appearance ofaChineseedition will
not only significantly extend our readership
but
also
nodoubt
increase
thenumberof
Chinese
contributorsto the
ISSJ.
Tofacilitate
communications,
Li X u e k u n willactasISSJ
correspondent in
Beijing.
Furthermore, arrangements have been
concluded with theCentre d'Etudeset Re
cherches
conomiques
et
Sociales
( C E R E S )
in Tunis, under the directorshipofthe ISSJ
correspondent inTunis, A .Bouhdiba, and
the publishingfirm,
Maison Arabe
du Livre,
Country/
currency
Africa ( C F A F )
Australia
(A$)
Canada(C$)
Federal Republic
of G e r m a n y
( D M )
France
(FF)
Japan (yen)
Other
Asian
countries ( U S $ )
Switzerland (SF)
United
K i n g d o m
andother
European
countries
( stg)
UnitedStates
and
Latin
America
( US $ )
Price
(percopy)
1 500
4.25
4.60
10
30
91.50
2.60
8
2.50
3.70
Annual
subscription
(surfacemail)
6
000
17
18
40
120
366
10
32
10
14
4
rue 7101
M a n a r
II,
B . P .
110 4 ,
Tunis,
for
the
publication
of
three
paperback
volumes
of translations into Arabicof thethematic
portions
ofISSJ, V o l . X X X I , N o . 3
(Patterns
of Child
Socialization).
Vol. X X X I I , N o . 3
( W o r k ) and N o .92
(Sporting
Life), in a
series entitled
'Sociological
Studies'. These
threevolumeswillalsoappear in 1984 ;others
m a y follow.
Lastly,
aselectionof
articlesfrom ISSJ,
Vol. XXVIII, No.
4,
Vol.
X X I X ,
No.
2,
Vol. X X X , No. 4, and principally Vol.
XXXII,
No. 2 (Dilemmas of Communi
cation:Technology
versus
Communities?)in
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
5/195
4
Editorial
Turkish
translation has appeared
under
the
title
ofIletiim ve toplum sorunlari:
kuram
ve
uygulama (Questions of
C o m m u n i c a t i o n
and
Society:
Theory
and
Practice)
published by
the Turkish Social Science Association/
U n e s c o
under
the
editorship
of D r Oy a
T o k g z . Another v o l u m e
on
' H u m a n
Settle
m e n t s andEnvironment'
will
be published in
1 9 8 4 ,
as
part
of the Turkish
series.
W e
wish to express our
gratitude
to Professor
Richard
Grathoff of the University of Biele
feld, Federal Republic of G e r m a n y , S e c
retary-Treasurer
of the
Research
C o m m i t t e e
for
Sociolinguistics
of theInternational
Socio
logical
Association
from
1 9 7 4
to
1 9 8 2 ,
for his
advice and
assistance
in
putting together
the
present
issue.
P.
L.
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
6/195
Languageinsociety
Thomas Luckmann
The
study of language
insociety
Looking at theremarkable achievementsin
the studyof languageduringthelast
years
and
decades,
andnotingthat
a
simple (or, perhaps
only seemingly simple) insight
c a m e to be
widely acknowledged during
the
earliest
phases
of
this development, one
is
strongly
tempted to
conclude that
the
connection
between these
two
facts
might
not have been
purely
coincidental.
Is
there, perhaps, acausal
relation?
T h e point that lan
guage
is a
communicat
ive
and
thus
a
social
p h e n o m e n o n
was, of
course,
not
new. M o r e
over, even
if it
had been
n e w ,
it
does
not s e e m
likely that
a
single
in
sight,
although un
doubtedly shedding an
unexpected light upon
the nature
of
language, would have been
in
itself capable
of
producing such
a
sudden
surge
in
the studyof language. The advances
in the various
disciplines
which,
incontradis
tinction
to the
traditional
limitation of the
several philologies to
language
as it
was
embodied
in
literary
texts,
took upthesys
tematicinvestigationof'living' language,of
language in use, might indeed have been
predicated on
the
notion that language
is a
T h o m a s L u c k man n
is
President
of the
International Sociological Associ
ation'sResearch
Committeefor
So-
ciolinguisticsand Professor
of
Soci
ologyattheUniversityofKonstanz,
P . O . B .
5560,
D - 7 7 5 0 , Konstanz
1,
Federal Republic
of G e r m a n y .
He
is theauthor ofThe Sociology of
Language (1975)
and
Life-world
and SocialRealities (1983)
as
well
asseveralotherauthoritativecontri
butions
to
the sociology
of
language
in G e r m a nand English.
social
fact.But the
recent rapid
accumulation
of
detailed
knowledge about language,
in
anthropology,
sociology,
psychologyand
' m o d e r n ' linguistics, is notprimarily attri
butable
to the
theoretical soundness
of
this
general point
but to the
painstaking explo
rationof
its
far-flung implications.
It is
due
to
yearsofconcentratedresearch
into
thesocial
construction,
socialtransmission,social func
tions
and
social
change of language.
In any case, the
gen
eral point today seems
so obviousnot to say
trivialhat it is diffi
cult
to
credit
it
with
having produced such
considerableeffects even
in
an
indirect way.
In
the
present
climate
of
scholarly
opinion
ittakes
a distinct
effort
to re
call
thefollowing
minor
but
interesting
historical
fact:
the
notion that
language
is
social,
al
though
of
ancientorigin,
only recently gained ground against other
and
partly
even
olderideas
about
the
essential
nature of
language.
N o w a d a y s
we
tend
toforget
that
thinking
about language
w a slong dominated by
biological
theoriesthat
werefirstspecifically creationist and theo
logical,
then
specifically
idealist,
subjectivist
and philosophical, and
later
specifically ma
terialistandreductionist.
T h e insight into thesocial characterof
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
7/195
Thomas
huckmann
WBP-
Hl
August
Wilhelm
von Schlegel (1767-1845), who
translated
Shakespeare
and
Caldern
into
G e r m a n ,
foundedSanskrit and Orientalliterature
studies
in
G e r m a n yand w asamajordisseminator of R o m a n
tic ideas
throughout
Europe.
Etching
b y G . Z u m p e
in the Bibliothque Nationale, Paris. Roger-vioiiet.
language m a y
be old, but the systematic study
of language
in
society
is anything but ancient.
B u t ,
then, of course, the systematic study of
anything whatsoever in
society
is offairly
recent
origin.
To be sure, one
m a y
think of
philosophy
as the truebeginning of
rational
and systematic thought from which m o d e r n
science
ultimately developed,
thus
m a k i n ga
casefor, say,Aristotle'sPoliticsandEthicsas
the beginning ofsocialscience. A n d ifoneis
unwilling
to
goback quite
that
far, one
still
cannot
miss the foreshadowing ofthingsto
c o m e
in the writings of
Vico
and,
s o m e w h a t
later,in thepolitical
e c o n o m y
of A d a m Smith
and
the
social
doctrines of
Saint-Simon.
Social
science as
w e
k n o w
it
today isnonethe
less
no
older than a hundred and
fifty
years;the
customary dating ofitsbeginningiswith the
publication
of
Auguste
C o m t e ' s
Coursde
philosophie positive, 1 8 3 0 - 4 2 . Neitherin its
prehistory,
withthe
partial
exception of
Vico,
nor in theearly
history
of
m o d e r n
social
science
is there m o r e
than
a
trace
of a
'sociological' approachtolanguage.
The
pos
sibilityof communicationin
society
w a s evi
dently taken to beessentiallyunproblematic,
whereas
the study of
language
as
a
separate
entity
w a s
left
to others.
T h e
study
of language,
taken
as an
autonomous
structurein
and by
itself,
had
a
different yetincertain
respects
parallelpre
history
and
history.
1
Until
theearly
nine
teenth century
little
progress had
been
m a d e
beyondthe (not in all
respects
inconsiderable)
linguistic knowledge
of
classical antiquity.
O n l y then did European scholars 'discover'
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
8/195
Language
in
society
7
Wilhelm vo n H um bo ld t
(1767-1835).diplomatand
philologist,
translator
of Pindar
and
Aeschylus
into
G e r m a n , scholar ofBasque and the ancient Kawi
language
of
Java,
most of whose important work
appeared posthumously
between
1836 and 1876.
Keystone.
Sanskrit and,perhaps even m o r e important,
the highly developed Indian tradition
of
rational,
systematic studyoflanguage. With
slight overdramatization one may
say
that
m o d e r n
comparative
linguistics
began
with
these twin 'discoveries'.Itm a y not be as
easy
as
in the
case
of
sociology
tosettle
on one
date and asinglescholar in order to m a r kthis
beginning.
H o w e v e r , after
making due
al
lowance
for the
attention
paid to Sanskrit by ,
a m o n g others,SirWilliam Jones
late
inthe
eighteenth century, and
the
von Schlegel
brothers, August Wilhelm
and
Friedrich,
earlyinthe nineteenth, the most important
figure
in the formation of
m o d e r n
linguistics
w a s
undoubtedlyFranz B o p p and
w e
m a ywell
note
thepublication date of his
ber das
Conjugationssystem derSanskritsprachein
Ferdinand
deSaussure (1857-1913), theSwisslin
guist,
w h o
published his
only
book
at21 years of
age. Hiswide
influence
w as
based
on
his teaching in
Paris andG enevaand on thecollectionof hislec
tures,publishedbyhis
disciples
in
1916
asCoursde
linguistique gnrale. Coll. prive nvel
Photo
Acschimann.
Vergleichimg
mitjenem dergriechischen, per
sischen und
germanischen Sprache
(On
the
System ofConjugation in Sanskrit,
compared
tothatin
Greek,
Persian andGermanic),to
wit,
1 8 1 6 .
The
fascination
with
etymological
reconstruction and the impressive successes of
the
comparative
method overshadowed any
consideration
of
the basic social function of
language anditsstructural consequences.It
w a s
along timebeforeanyoneevensuspected
thatkeyelementsof the
structure
oflanguage
m a y derive from itsuse,from social interac
tion.
With the
Y o u n g Grammarians
of the
following generation
the
model
of
physical
science prevailed in
their
confident search for
immutable lawsoflanguage. A n d despite the
growth
ofsignificantly different ideas on the
nature of
languagein
the
second
half of the
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
9/195
8
Thomashuckmann
nineteenth and then
in
thetwentiethcentury,
theorientation
to
this
model
prevailedwell
intoBloomfield'stime.
It
w a s
notedthat theearlydevelopment
of the
social
sciences,
especiallyof
sociology
and anthropology,
showed
s o m e
parallels
with
the development
of
modern linguistics.The
similar directiontaken by the
several
budding
sciences
of
h u m a n affairs was due
in
great
measure
totheeffect ofcertainintellectual
and ideological
paradigmswhich
c a m e
to the
fore during this period. T wo
particularly
influential
ones a m o n g
them,
physicalism and
biologism, their
m a n y differences notwith
standing,
jointly
left
a
legacy
of
pervasive
reductionist
attitudes.
In
consequence,
even
in thedisciplines involved in thestudyof
h u m a n
affairs,thespecifically
h u m a n consti
tution
of
social
realityw a s ignored or taken
to
be
a
matter
of
surface appearancesrather
than
the
profound nature
of
society. There
foreso
went
received opinionthe lawsof
economic,politicaland other kindsofsocial
(including communicative)
behaviour had
to
be sought beneath.
that
surface.
Another
paradigm
which
exerted a
certain
influence
on
the
social
sciences from
the
late nineteenth
century
onward,
historicism,
was
not re
ductionistbutseemedtodenythe very possi
bilityofagenuine scienceof
h u m a n
affairs,
no t excluding
language.
In place of the aim of
science
to
explain h u m a n behaviour n o m o -
thetically,it
offered themodestgoal
(to
s o m e
it
seemed
a
disappointingly modest one)
of
ideographicreconstructionand understanding
o f h u m a n
action.
Thus it is
hardly surprising
thatthe
parallelsindevelopmentledneitherto
a
close
relation
between
thenew sciences norto a
mutual interest intheir
respective
subject-
matters.
Remaining truetotheir
nature,
the
parallelsdid not
meet.
Littleserious
attention
w a s given
to
language
inthesocial
sciences,
justas
there
w a s
little
well-informed
concern
with society
in
linguistics. For
the
sake of
accuracy
one
must
acknowledge
that
there
were exceptions,
even
significant ones. It is
noteworthy, however, that
a m o n g
thethree
major
figureswho may
be
n a m e d
as the
foremost
examples, only one was placed
in
the
'mainstream'
of his
discipline,
whereasthe
other tw o
were
outsidersalthough
itmust
be
added
that
they werenot
outsiders
in
quite
thesamesense.
Wilhelm
W u n d t w a s
indeeda
major
figure
in his
field;
he
sensitivity
to
linguistic and,
generally,
communicative
issuesinhismain works in
psychologyand
ethnology
w a s ,
however,
exceptional
as
late
as the
turn
of the century.
Karl
M a r x w a s ,of
course,
anythingbut
a
recognized academic
figure;
in any case,thepassing remarkson
language
in his
early
writings, although poten
tially
important,
were
not
developedfurther.
Another academic outsider,
Wilhelmvon
Humboldt,
completes
the
list;
his
essays on
language
(among
whichthereis,for example,
o n e
on language andits'nationalcharacter
istics') andtheintroduction to hismajor
treatise
on
the
K a w i language
were remark
ably
'sociolinguistic' in spiritbeforethe
event,to
be sure.
In sociology, ethnology
and linguistics
this
situation
began
to
changeduring the
first
decade
of the present century. W h a t informer
times had
been
an
exception
to
prevailing
notions,at
that
timebecame the cornerstone
of an ambitioustheoreticaland
methodologi
cal
programme. Originallyrestrictedto
one
sociologicalschool
of
thought,
in
due course
thisprogramme
ledto a
pervasive change
in
the approachtothe study of
language.
If one
were to
yield once again
to the
temptationtosymbolizea
complex
process of
change byasingle
n a m e
and date, oneis
certain
to
select
withouthesitation Antoine
Meillet'sdeservedly
famous
essay ' C o m m e n t
les
mots changent de
sens'.
The
date:
1905-1906.
And
the
place
ofpublication:
L'anne sociologique]
The very
first
sentence
establishesthemainpoint of the programme:
' L e
langage a
pour
premire condition
l'existencedes
socits
humainesdont
il
est de
so n ct l'instrument indispensable
etcons
tamment employ . . .le
langage
est
donc
m i n e m m e n t
un
fait
social.'('Thefundamen
talcondition forlanguage
is
the existenceof
h u m a n
societies, ofwhich it is theindis
pensableinstrument, andinconstant use. . .
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
10/195
Languagein society
'Sociality
refers
to the
regulation
of whatever in a
species
has the
function
ofcommunicativebehaviour by
m ea nsof acode": Liverpool
footballsupporters displaying
ownership of a
section
of a grandstand and
transmitting
the group
image. RayGreen.
language
is thus an eminently
social
fact.')
2
Meillet thus placed himself in sharp
oppositionto thevarious
reductionist
viewsof
language
andsocietywhich were dominant in
linguisticsand thesocialsciencesatthattime.
H e fully
aligned
himself with Durkheim and
asserted, infull awareness of the theoretical
and
methodological
implications
of
this pos
ition,
that
linguistics
is, or at any
rate
should
be,asocialscience.His
teacher,
Ferdinand de
Saussurewho
together
with Charles S.
Peirce
was one of the founders of m o d e r n
semioticshad suggested as m u c h at approxi
mately
the s a m e time. In his case, too, the
influence of Durkheim is unmistakable.
3
Semiotics or, as he preferred to call it,
semiology,
w a s to be 'une
science
quitudiela
vie des signesau seinde la vie sociale;
elle
formerait
une
partie
de la psychologie
sociale'
('a
science
whichstudiesthe
life
ofsigns
within
sociallife; it is to be part of social psy
chology'emphasis
in the
original).
4
For
Durkheim. de Saussure and
Meillet
language
w a s a
social
institution,
irreducible
to psy
chologicalcircumstances orphysiologicalsub
strata.
It
differed from other social insti
tutions
only by its relatively autonomous
semiological
structure.
Henceforth the 'socio
logical'
approach to the study of language
steadily gained ground. It wasdiffused far
beyond
the boundaries of the
Durkheimian
school and the nascent semiotic m o v e m e n t .
A s w a s indicatedbefore, theviewof language
as the highly
structured
core of c o m m u n i
cation in societyhadalready been developed
in relatively ' m o d e r n ' terms byWilhelmvon
H u m b o l d t ; it had appeared aphoristically in
thewritingsof M a r x and, towards the end of
the
nineteenth
century, it informed the psy
chology and ethnology of
Wilhelm
W u n d t .
N o n e
the
less
it m a ybe
said
with
justice
that
it
w a s Durkheim, his
followers
in sociology and
ethnology and themajorlinguists
upon
w h o s e
thinking
he had exerted a
strong
influence
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
11/195
10 ThomasLuckmann
w h o decisively
changed
the
general
(and
international)climate of opinioninthe study
of
language. This changeaffected sociology,
linguistics,
ethnology and
psychology
at
varying
speed and
inunequal
measure,
but
eventually
it
affected
them
all.
M o s t
im
portantly,
in the
aftermath
ofthis
change
a
n e w discipline
was
born
which
c a m e to e m
body
the
'sociological' approachto
the study
of language,the sociology oflanguage.
Dating back theinception of thesoci
ologyoflanguage
to
Meillet'sarticle,
I
defini
tely
donotwishtoimplythatthen e w
discipline
emerged
overnight, nor do
Iwantto
suggest
that it
was
developed
exclusively
by
Dur-
kheim
and his
school.
Progress in the
field
was
relatively
slow during
thefirstdecades
and
increasedratherslowly in the
1950s.
T h emost
productive period
started
in thelate
1960s.
B y that
time
m a n y quitedifferent kinds
of
influence on
the
study
of
language could
be
registered,
s o m e of them of a
passingly
fashionable character,
s o m e of
more
lasting
consequence. Onlya
few
were
linked
to the
Durkheimiantraditioninsociology andthat,
asin the case of the
severalstructuralisms
and
of
renascent semiotics,indirectly.T h e
view
of
language
as asystemof
communication
with
socialfunctions, constructed, maintained and
modified in
social interaction
and as an
intrinsic
partof the
social
stock of
knowledge
(of
the
reprsentationscollectives)
,
which
is at
theheartoftheparadigmof the contempor
ary sociologyoflanguage,
none
the
lessstill
exhibits
significant traces
of the
original
Durkheimian
imprint.
In
the
spaceallottedIcannot
undertake
to
review indetail the
various important
threads of theory and research
which
are
w o v e n intothepresent
pattern
of thesoci
ologyoflanguage.
5
Instead Ishould
like
to
describe
in
general outlineI
hope
without
undue
simplificationwhat to
m y mind
is
n o w
the
paradigm of this discipline
'between'
sociology,
ethnology,
psychology
and
linguis
tics.
I
want
to
s h o w
which
assumptionsare
taken
tobetheoreticallysoundandinternally
consistent, productiveofhypothesesfor fu
ture research andconsonant
with
theresults
of
past investigations.
Ishall
not
report
on
specificfindings
6
butIwouldliketos u mup
those general points about the natureof
language insociety
which
seem to bemost
strongly supported
by the
findings accumu
lated
in the
sociology
of
language
since
its
programmatic
beginnings almost three-quar
ters
of
a
century ago.
Evolution
ofcommunication
andthehistoricalformation
of
language
W e r e one
to
accept
the
term
in its
widest
sense, all
communication
would
have
to be
considered'social'.
After
all,w h y
should the
transmission
of
information
from
one
cellto
another
not be
called
an elementary
form
of
social communication? Butcommunication
thatissocialin a strictsenseofthe wordis
communication that takes place between
or
ganisms and not within
themand perhaps
one
should add,between
fully
individuated
organisms. The elementary forms
of
c o m
munication
such
as
genetic
coding,
infor
mation processinginphysiological feedback
systems,
etc., are adaptiveinthe evolution of
life-forms. Social communicationin the nar
rowersensem a ynodoubtalsobe regarded as
an
adaptive process, even
if on a
more
complex level of the
organization
of life.
H o w e v e r ,
suchconsiderations of adaption and
evolution are so general and
abstract
as
to
be
ordinarily ofremote
interest
in thesocial
sciences. T o
them,
time-spans
of
an
entirely
differentorder ofmagnitude,and events
with
quite
different
kinds
of consequencesare
relevant.
Social communication
is ofinterest
inasmuch
as
it
determines
in asignificant w a y
the
everyday conduct
of the
m e m b e r s
of our
species andinsofar as
itconstitutes
the
fabric
of h u m a nsocialorganization. A nunderstand
ingofh u m a n communication m a y neverthe
less
benefit from
a
brief consideration
of
the
most
important
dimensions
of
social
c o m
munication
in
general.
These dimensions are sociality, reci
procity,
abstraction
and
intentionality.
Social-
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
12/195
Language in society
11
ity
refers
to the regulation of
whatever
in a
species has the function of communicative
behaviour by means of a code which is
establishedwhether by genetic program
ming,learningor a
combination
of the two
in a species or
groups
within the species.
Reciprocity is constituted in a continuous
alternation of 'feedback' from oneorganism
to another; itpresupposes
that
oneorganism's
ability to observe (and to 'interpret') the
behaviour of other organisms is imputedby
that
organism
to others and that its own
behaviour is correspondingly adjusted to an
ticipated observation (andinterpretation)by
them,
and vice versa. Abstraction is the
faculty
to
refer
in
communication
not only to
the concrete components of theactual
c o m
municative
situation but also to elements
transcending it in space and
time.
A n d inten-
tionalityrefers
to the
awareness
on thepartof
anindividualorganism of the communicative
repertoire of his species or
group,
and his
abilityto use it or,
under
circumstances,not
to use it.
Socialcommunication in
different
species
is evidently
characterized
by
different
kinds of
sociality,
different
forms of
reciprocity
and
unequal
degrees of
abstraction
as well as
intentionality. A n d it is, of course,
character
ized by
different
combinations of these di
mensions ofsocialcommunication.Sociality,
for
example,
is
programmed
for theindividual
members of
most
species in a rather
rigid
fashion; butwiththe m a m m a l s and
especially
with
the primates it begins to depend in
increasing
measure
upon
experience and
learning,
although it unquestionably continues
to be
based
on genetically more
directly
determined elements. Or, to take another
example, it is well k n o w n
thatabstraction
is
highly
developed
in thesocialcommunication
of thehoneybee but is absent or low inmost
other species, including
most m a m m a l s ;
it
reappears significantly with the higher
pri
mates.Intentionality
has,
ofcourse,extremely
complex
physiological presuppositions and
its adaptive value is probably linked to the
individualization
ofsocialrelationsincertain
m a m m a l
species (perhaps
mostpronouncedly
in hunting species?); it undeniablydoes not
appearuntillatein the evolution of life-forms.
W h e nflexible('individualized)sociality,
fullreciprocity,high
abstractionandadvanced
intentionality have evolved, their systematic
combination
allows for the
development
of
the
most
complex and
most
highly differen
tiated form ofsocialcommunication. W h a t
ever the conditions for the
separate
develop
ment
of these
faculties
and,morespecifically,
whatever the conditions for their systematic
combinationfull consensus on these
ques
tionshas notbeenreacheditseems
obvious
that they obtained in hominid evolution,
althoughtheir
combination
in a
fully
fledged
system
of
social
communication
m a y
be lim
ited
to hom o.
Another moot
question is
whether the development of such a
system
presupposed,or
was
co-ordinatedwith,ashift
to vocal expression. The evolutionary advan
tages of vocal language
must
undoubtedly
have been considerable.
7
With the mention of language westep
over
a threshold in the
development
ofsocial
communication. It divides 'natural'systemsof
social
communication from
'historical'
ones.
It
is a threshold of considerable importance
although, in a metaphorical sense,
history
itself may be said to have emerged from
nature
while,
at the same time, having re
mained
part of it. Putting it
differently, sys
temsofsocialcommunication are products of
natural selection,
and languagesbeing the
main elements of h u m a n social communi
cationare
therefore
unquestionably the re
sult
of evolutionary processes. But languages
are verypeculiar
systems
ofsocial communi
cation
and they are products of evolution in
a lessdirect
w a y than
social
communication
in other species.
T o be sure, language cannot be under
stood except as having evolved from some
prior and more primitive system of social
communication. And the functions of
language
m a y
be consideredanalogousto the
functions of
social
communication
in other
species, at least in a formal andabstract
sense. Yet languages cannot be understood
adequately only in simple analogy to older
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
13/195
12
Thomashuckmann
forms. W h e n
it comesto
language,
there is a
qualitative
change
in the
method
of pro
duction, transmissionand use of thesystem
of social communication. In other words,
language is an evolutionary emergent.The
elementary
presuppositions
for the
produc
tion, transmission
and use of the
linguistic
codeincluding
a
cognitive 'depth-structure'
that
must
presumably b epresentin the h u m a n
organismif anyof
theseprocesses
are towork
properlycontinueto be genetically
transmit
ted,
as part of the
h u m a n biogram.
8
B u t
the
linguistic
codes
themselves
are the
result
of
social interaction.
M o r e
precisely,
they
are
the
cumulative
historical resultofcommunica
tive acts; thetransmissionof the
code
consists
ofintentional
communicative
acts,too, andso
doestheordinary
everyday
use of thecode.
Before
takinga closerlook at
this n e w
level of social communication it
should
be
noted
that
languages
ashistorical
linguistic
codesdid not entirely
replace
thephylogeneti-
callyolderelementsof socialcommunication.
Thusa situation ofunprecedented
complexity
arose. Language became
the
main
and
most
important
system of social communication
a n d w a s substituted for
what
m a y
have
been
its primitivepredecessor as the main
code.
B u t
elements
of the phylogenetically older
components of social communication, most
importantly
those
linked
to
gesture, posture
and facial expression, continued
to
coexist
with
language.
Theyfilled
partiallyindepen
dent
communicative
functions and wereordi
narilyusedby
instinct.
B u t a certainmeasure
of consciouscontroland intentional use also
became possible. In face-to-face c o m m u n i
cation
the use of
language recombined
with
the
partly instinctive, partly intentional
e m
ployment
ofothermeansof social c o m m u n i
cation.
Moreover, the
development
of ab
stract codes based onother
than
thevocal
modality became possiblein analogyto the
development
of a
linguistic code. A n d
all
thisdoes
not
even take
intoaccountthe ad
ditionalhistoricalcomplexityand
richness
of
h u m a n systems of social communication
which obtained after the introduction of
notational
systems and of
writing.
T h e immediate
antecedentsof
languages
as historical
sign
systems were nonethe less
probably rather rudimentary
communicative
codeswhicharosefromuncodifiedorweakly
codified social communication. Thebegin
nings
of the
construction
of
communicative
codes
must
be traced
back
to a
stage
inwhich
phylogenetically older
elements
of social
c o m
munication
could
beused with considerable
flexibility and in which, at the same time,
highly individualized social interaction was
possible.Highly
individualized social interac
tion
is
characterized
byfull reciprocity and
thus
allowsfor effective intersubjective
mir
roring.
9
In such interactions those
elements
thatwererelevant to theotherparticipants in
the situationcouldbecommunicatedtothem
b y typical expressive forms of avocal, ges
tural,
postural and
mimetic natureand
the
expressive forms could
be reproducedand
imitated.
T h e
most important
itemsof
inter-
subjectiverelevancewere n o doubtsubjective
actionprojectswhichplayeda role in the co
ordination of social action such as, for
example, big-game
hunting,
marriage
ex
changes,
ritualization of
aggression, coping
withthe
dead,
etc.
It seems obviousthat atfirsthe objects
and events to which
communicative
acts
referred successfullyh a d to be in the c o m m o n
reach
of the participants in the
communicative
situation. But the importance ofdeixis
very
likely
decreased an d
therefore
this
limitation
could
be overcome after the faculty of ab
straction reached a certain level ofdevelop
ment.(It shouldbenotedinparenthesesthat
thisdevelopment neednot
have
beendirectly
and exclusively linked
to social
c o m m u n i
cation; another important
factor
m a y have
been the
adaptive value
of certain kindsof
generalization
for subjectivem e m o r y and the
planning
of individualaction.)In theprocess
ofintersubjectivemirroringtheproductionof
expressive forms became standardized,
and
the
interpretation of the meaning of an
expressiveform
by its
producer,
the interpre
tation of it by the
addressee,
andthisin
terpretation (by the
addressee)
as anticipated
by the
producer
became congruent for all
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
14/195
Language in
society
13
'Highly individualized social interactionischaracterized byfullreciprocityand thus allows foreffective
intersubjectivemirroring."Henri Cartier-Brcsson/Magnum.
practical purposes. T h u s
once
m o r e arela
tively
fixed
code
could be
established,
now
h o w e v e r
forintentional
use.
In
the
full
reci
procity ofthe communicative situation,with
an
increasing
degree
ofabstractionand
g r o w
ing
intentional
control
of
production and
interpretationof expressive
forms,
contextual
ellipsis
b e c a m e
possible. In other
w o r d s .
communicativeactscouldrefertoelementsof
the everyday realityofspeaker and
listener
wh ich transcended
the
communicative situ
ation inspaceandtime. T h e expressive forms
b e c a m e
proto-signs.
T h e y b e c a m e signs in thefullsense of the
w o r d w h e n therelation
between
thesig-
nificans,
thevehicle, theincorporationof
m e a n i n g , and the
signification,
the intended
m e a n i n g , b e c a m e
socially
obligatory. The
congruenceof
meaning
in
decoding and en
coding wasofcourseof
extreme
social sig
nificance. It
m u s t have been
subject tosocial
control from the beginning,that
is,
with
the
intersubjective construction ofproto-signs.
W e
ma y
speak
of aninstitutionalization of
proto-signs and thus oftheir
shift
to
fullsign
status as
soon
as such control was also
exercised
in
the transmission of the elements
of the code toothers, especiallytoanother
generation.
I n sum:languages arehistorical sign
systems.
T h e
bare
bones
of the
h u m a n
system
of
social
communication
are
shared by
the
m e m b e r s of thespecies;all the
rest
is the
productofsocial construction andhistorical
sedimentation.
L a n g u a g e ,socialreality
a n d
social structure
T h e point was m a d e that language is an
evolutionary emergent, whereas languages
are
formed
historicallyinspecific chains of
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
15/195
14
Thomashuckmann
communicative
acts over thelong
course
of-
generations.Languagethus'originates'phylo-
genetically
aswellas
ontogenetically,
in the
evolution
of
mankind and
in thelife-history
of
every h u m a n being,
in aparticular
form
of
social interaction:
in
acts
of
social
communi
cation. In general terms this defines the
relationbetweenlanguage an d society.
People
ordinarily
do .not
communicatein
order
to establish a
communicative code.
Theydo not talk
among themselves
in
order
tomaintainlanguage. Peoplecommunicatein
order
todosomething, with oneanother,
against each other and,onoccasion,by
themselves.
In communicative acts people
prepare
to
cope
with
the
diverse
problems
of
everyday
lifein
society.A n d they
oftenalso in
fact
cope
with
them
in
communicative
acts.
Evidentlycommunicationisnotallthereis to
it and there are m a n y kindsof social interac
tion that are not
communicativeunless,
in a
severe
bout
of
pansemioticism,
oneunduly
extendsthe meaningofthat
term.
It
m a y
be
said
with
justice,however,
that
communicative
acts define
reality
inasmuch asthey define
ways by
which
to act
upon
it.
To
a
certain
extent these
waysarepredefinedinlanguage;
and languageisthe repository ofpast c o m m u
nicative
acts in
which people coped
with
problems
of
everyday
life.
Languages
arethe
core
ofsocialstocksofknowledge. Theyare
no t only waysof
looking
at
reality
but also
waysofdealingwith
reality
and thus,evenif
indirectly,waysofmakingreality.
Language
and
society
stand
in adialecti
cal relationship
to
one
another.
Language
is
the product of an initiallypre- andproto-
linguistic
sequence
of
h u m a n
coping
with
life
and
the
world
insocial
communication. Life
and
the
world m a y
be
thought
of as
predeter
mined
by
'nature'
aswellas bya setofmore
or less 'natural' social relations, aprimitive
social structure. Coping with
reality
in c o m
municative acts,people begintoconstructa
coherentworld and at
the
same
time
tobuild
u p
a language 'unintentionally'.
W h e n
a
language
develops
as the
core
of social
c o m
munication
and
gainsacertain
autonomy
asa
systemof
signs,
asacomprehensive
inventory
of significations, it determines themaindi
mensionsof the acts of socialcommunication.
Therefore it
proximately
also
codetermines
the way
inwhich
people
dealwith
everyday
problems. Languageswhich
are
products
of
the
social
construction
of
realitymost
sig
nificantly contributetothe social
construction
of reality. Thus ahistorical social product
becomes an
important
factor insocial pro
duction and
reproduction.
Social
interaction, including specifically
communicative
acts,is
only
in part amatter of
objectivespontaneity and situation-bound and
concreteintersubjectivenegotiation.Inlarge
part it is predetermined socially. The
pro
portion
of interactional
freedom
to
structural
constraint
varieshistorically
from
societyto
society,
andwithin asocietyinanygiven
epoch from one
type
of
action
orsituationto
another. Communicative actsare of
course
predefined
and predetermined,firstand fore
most,
by thesocial
code
of
communication
and
the
core
ofthat
code,
a
language,
in its
'inner'
phonological,
morphological,
semantic
and syntactic structure and byits'external'
stratification
in
versions,
styles, registers,
socio- and dia-lects. Inaddition, communi
cativeacts are
predefined
and predetermined
by
explicit and implicit rules and regulations
of
the use of
language, most importantly
by everyday
(and
literary) communicative
genres,
forms
of
communicative
etiquette
(forms ofaddressandthelike),etc. M o r e
over, communicative acts, as a formof
social interaction, areprefinedand
predeter
mined
by
non-communicative
rules
and
regu
lations: by institutions, a set of social
relations,asystemof
production
andrepro
duction,inshort, byahistoricalsocial struc
ture. This is a matter which is to be
considered n o w in somewhat less general
terms.
10
Social
communication isdeterminedby
the social structure both diachronically and
synchronically. Languagesoriginate,develop
and
change
under varying social
circum
stances. Social
circumstanceswhich
m a yre
main relatively
stable or
change slowly
or
swiftlydetermine
theconditionsunderwhich
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
16/195
Languageinsociety
15
Overcoming unequal access
to
language:
the
experimental melograph,
amachine to
re-educate deaf
children.
B yvisualizingsound,itenables speakersto
control
the pitchof
their
voices, C N E T :Centrede
Traitement
de
l'Oue et de la Parole Fougres,
France
language is
used
in communicative acts.It
hardly
needs
to
be
repeated
that
c o m m u n i c a
tive actsareinstrumentalin
changing
social
circumstances. M o r eo v e r ,
they influencethe
development of theexternalstratificationof
language;
less directly and, ordinarily, also
less swiftly,
they influence the
maintenance
and thechangeofthe elementsin theinner
structureof
language.
In
v i e w
ofthese c o m
plex,many-layered and
many-directional
rela
tionsit
w o u l d
beimpermissibletouseasimple
(materialistic
or
idealistic)
m o d e l
ofcausa
tion. Social conditions,
social communication
and
language influence each otherinvarious
w a y s ,
inh u m a n space
and
in
socialtime. T h e
eventsinw h i c h these
influences
areconcrete
ly manifested are communicative acts.In
other
w o r d s , the 'causes'
'interact'
(it
is
necessary
to put both terms in inverted
c o m m a s )insocial interaction.
A particular
historical
social structure
thus
determined a
particular
chain
of
c o m
municative
acts. These acts stabilized s o m e
elements ofsocial communication, linguistic
as
well
asnon-linguistic ones, andmodified
others.
Thereby theycontributedtothe
m a i n
tenance
or to the
change,
whether
slow
or
swift,
ofthe externalstratification andinner
structure
of a
particular language.
A
particu
lar language determined thelinguisticcoreof
communicative acts, under
conditions
ofuse
w h i c h
w e r e
codetermined partly by
m o r eor
less obligatory rulesforthe use of thevarious
m e a n sofsocialcommunication (rulesforthe
m o s t part
e m b e d d e d
in theexternalstratifi
cation
of
language),
partly by
n o n - c o m m u n i
cative
rules of social interaction.
A n d
particu
lar communicative acts had specifiable direct
or indirect
consequences
forthe social struc
ture aswell
as
anaggregated
long-term
effect
u p o n the structure oflanguageitself.
Looking at therelation between society
and
language in aslightly different perspec
tive, w e see thatbothan individual'saccess
to
the m e a n s ofcommunication aswell as his
actual useof
t h e m
issocially determined.In
the
first
place
it is the
child's and
the
y o u n g
person'sinitialchanceofaccesstothereper
toireof the m e a n s of
social communication
w h i c h is
predetermined
bya
historical
social
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
17/195
16
Thomashuckmann
structure. The chancesofaccessaresocially
distributed. The distribution
derives
fromthe
prevailing
system of social stratification
which,
dependingon
time
andplace, m a ybe
anarchaickinship
system,
atraditionalcaste
or
feudal
society
or
any
of
the
modern
class
societies.
Socializationwhich
isbydefinition
acommunicativeprocessthusrepresents the
biographical
dimensionof social inequality.
In
addition
totheunequaldistribution ofgoods,
the structure of inequality consists of an
uneven
distribution of thesocial
stock
of
knowledge, andinparticularofthemeansof
social communication. There m a y merely
be
moderately
decreased
chances ofaccessor
there may
be
outright barriers,
economic
discrimination
orlegal orreligious prohib
ition.
11
In
the
second'place,
the
social structure
regulates
indifferent
ways
andby
various
procedures theactual
employment
of the
means
ofcommunication in
concrete
social
interaction. A s was indicatedearlier,the el
ements
of
social communication consist
both
of
theinternally structured andexternally
stratifiedlanguage,
and
of
the
less
systemati
callyandintricatelystructured (and generally
less strongly conventionalized)
mimetic,
gestural, postural,
etc.,
expressive forms.
Furthermore,
thereare
composite means
of
social communication which m a y becalled
communicative genres. These
are
obliga
tory
selections and combinations of the
linguistic andnon-linguistic elements of
social communication which
serve
specific
communicative
functions
in
socially
defined
typical situations,
by
socially defined typi
cal
producers, for socially
defined
typical
addressees. Theuse ofcommunicative
genres
is
thus
clearly also determined bysocial
structuralconditions.
12
The
terms
'socialconditions', 'socialcir
cumstances'
andsimilar
expressions have
been usedsofar inanencompassing senseto
refer to avarietyofsocial facts. These facts
have
in c o m m o n
that
they
are
characterized
by a
certain degree
of
intersubjective con
straint.
Whereas this
would customarily
also
include everything
connected with
social c o m
munication, it is clear that in thepresent
context only non-communicative social facts
were considered. But
w h e n
we
speak
of
'determination'
bysocial structure, a nar
rower
and
more precisely defined part
of
social
reality
is
meant,
the part that
is
marked
by
thehighest degreeofsocial control.
Such
controlisbasedon
sanctions
that are
backed
by
organized
power andconsideredlegitimate
by the
members
of a
society,
at leastin
general
principle,
permitting
m a n y exceptions
in fact.Thispart of social structure consistsof
a more
orless
coherently arranged
set of
socialinstitutions. Institutionsareobligatory
'solutions'
of
themost c o m m o n problemsof
the
social
organization
of life.
Institutional
ized social interaction is more
rigidly
con
trolled with respectto
means
and has
more
clearly
defined endsthan
otherkindsof social
interaction.
This
areaof social
life,
therefore,
exhibitsalow
degree
oftolerancefordevi
ations from established
procedure.
Insti
tutions
organize
the central
functions
of social
life,
such
asproductionanddistribution of the
means
of life
reproduction,
the
exercise
of
power,
and the
construction
of
'meaning',
thatis,oflegitimacyforthe socialorder and
of cognitive
coherence for
individual
life in
society.
Institutions
have
aspecific locationin
social
space
and
time
andthey m a y ,ofcourse,
be
also seen as a specific aggregationof
personnel.But essentially theyare a
code
of
action.
The
regulationofcommunicationisob
viously anelementary prerequisite for the
day-to-day
working
of
institutions.
The
flow
of
communication in
institutional
settingsis
channelled according to thefunctionalre
quirements
ofthe
institution.Frequency
and
direction of
communicative
acts are subjectto
normative
regulation.Specialcommunicative
networks m a y become
established and segre
gated in order to prevent outside, 'non
functional' interference. There
is, ofcourse,
considerable variation in thelevelof c o m
plexity
and
degree
of
specialization
which
characterizes
different
institutions
inthe
same
society,
andthe'same' institution fromone
society
to
another.
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
18/195
Languagein
society
17
For
thepurposeofcommunicationwithin
an
institution,
available
elements
ofsocial
communication such asstyles,
registers
and
even entire communicative genresareselec
ted from
thegeneralsocial stockofknowl
edge
and put
to
more
or
less
specialized use
such
as the
organization
of
work within
institutional
settings,
recruitment
and social
ization of
personnel,
etc.Underthe differen
tiated
functional
requirements
of
institutional
communication available
elements m a y
not
suffice and
n e w
special styles,
registers
and
genres m a y beformed. Selection
from
the
reservoir
ofsocial communication and ad
ditionsto itare,
however, only
partly deter
mined
by basic
functional
requirements
of in
stitutional communication.
Such
processes
are
also
motivated
byother thanthepurely
semiotic
functions of communication. It is
well
k n o w n , for example, that indicative
('marking')
and phatic ('solidarizing') func
tions playanimportant rolein the
develop
mentof
institutionaljargons.
13
A
society,
however,
isnot
only
a
system
of institutions
that
organize
thebasic func
tionsofsociallifein anobligatory
fashion.
Societyisalsoa setof (potentially or actually)
c o m m o n and (potentially oractually) antag
onistic interests. Under
certain
conditions
suchinterestswill beorganizedmore
or
less
effectively. In the
organization
of
interests
the
formulation
ofprogrammatic versionsof the
social stock ofknowledge, ofideologies,is
instrumental. It is a trivial observation that
such formulations
must
use theavailable
elementsofsocial communication. But
they
not
only usethem, they also change them,
and such changes m a y
initiate oraccelerate
changes
in language and
other
parts
of
social communication. In theorganization
of
c o m m o n andantagonistic class-based,
ethnic,
national andreligious intereststhe
marking
(perhaps
one
should
say 'demar-
cational') and the solidarizing functions
become more important than the semio-
logical
one.
Notes
1. Forapleasantlyandreliably
old-fashioned account
of the
developmentof
m o d e r n
linguistics
in
thenineteenth
century seeHolger Pedersen,
The Discoveryof Language:
Linguistic
Science
inthe19th
Century,Bloomington,
Indiana,
Indiana
University
Press,
1962
(Indiana University Studiesin
theHistoryand Theory
of
Linguistics);originally
C a m b r i d g e ,
Massachusetts,
Harvard
UniversityPress,
1931;
translatedfrom Danish by John
Webster
Spargo(originaltitle
Sprogvidenskaben
i
detnittende
aarhundrede: metoder og
resultater, C o p e n h a g e n ,
Gyldendalske
Boghandel, 1924) .
O n
Jones
see
also H a n s
Aarsleff,
TheStudyof Language
inEngland, 1780-1860,
Princeton, N e w Jersey,
PrincetonUniversityPress.
1967 .
For
abrief
general
review
of
the
developmentoflinguistics
inrelation
to
other
sciencessee
R o m a n Jacobson,
Main
Trends
intheScienceof
Language,
London,George
Allen
U nwin, 1973.
2 . ReprintedinAntoine
Meillet,Linguistiquehistorique
et
linguistiquegnrale,Paris,
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
19/195
18
Thomas Luckmann
Edouard
Champion,
1948
(1921).
The
quotationisto be
foundthereon
page
230.
3. See W . Doroszewski,
'Quelques remarques
sur les
rapportsde lasociologieetdela
linguistique:
Durkheim
et
F .
de
Saussure',
inPierreJanet and
Georges
D u m a s
(eds.),
Psychologiedulangage,Paris,
1933.
4 . Ferdinand de Saussure,
Coursde la
linguistiquegnrale,
Paris,Payot, 1955. Theoriginal
edition, writtenupfrom student
notes of de Saussure'slectures
between
1907
and
1911,
was
published by his
disciples
Charles
Bally and Albert
Sechehayein
1916
and thefirst
revisededitionappeared in
1922.
Itshould be notedthatde
Saussure'sinfluenceon the
developmentofmodern
linguistics
dependedatfirston
his teachingatthe University of
Genevaandlateron the
posthumous
publication
of the
book
mentioned
above.
During
his
lifetime
he had published
only
one importantlinguistic
essay, in
1878
at the age of
21
It
was
on the
vowel
in Proto-Indo-
European;Meillet's o w n
Introductionl'tude
comparativedeslanguesindo
europennes(1st ed. asLes
dialectes
indo-europens,Paris,
1903;rev. 2nd ed.,Paris,
Edouard Champion, 1907),
which
was
reissued
in the
AlabamaLinguistic
and
Philological
Series (University,
Alabama,University of
AlabamaPress,
1964)was
fittingly
dedicated to the master.
5. I
have
triedto dothis
elsewhere;
few reasonably
comprehensive
and concise
reviews
of the
fieldexist;
although
m a n yexcellent
volumesof readings,
introductions,
textbooks and
similar
publicationsare
available.
Seem y
'Soziologie der
Sprache'
Vol.
13 ofRen Knig
(ed.),Handbuch der
empirischenSozialforschung,
pp.
1-116,
Stuttgart,Enke,
1979,
which
contains an
extensive bibliography. (A
briefer
and
n o w
outdated
contributionto the
firstedition
oftheHandbuch (1969)was
published in an English version
asThe Sociology of
Language,
Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill,
1975.)
6. ForthatI
m a y
againreferto
the
book
mentionedin the
preceding
footnote.
7 .
Insteadof providing an
inadequatelybrief bibliography
I m a yrefer
to the
documentationin the following
two
essays:
Thomas
Luckmann,
'Elements
of a Social
Theory
of
Communication',Life-World
andSocialRealities,
London,
Heinemann, 1983(originallyin
Lexikon derGermanistischen
Linguistik,
Tbingen,
Niemeyer, 1973);and
Thomas
Luckmann, 'PersonalIdentityas
an
Evolutionary andHistorical
Problem',
Life-World
.. . ,
op.
cit.,
pp.
95-109
(originally
in M . v.Cranachetal. (eds.).
Human
Ethology:
Claimsand
Limitsof aNewDiscipline,
Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press,1980).
8. See E . W . Count,Dos
Biogramm,Anthropologische
Studien,
Frankfurtam Main,
S.Fischer
Verlag,1970. See
alsohis ' O n the
Phylogenesis
of
Speech',Current
Anthropology,
Vol. 15,
N o .
1, 1974,
pp.14-16.
9. Cooley'slooking-glasseffect
SeeCharles H . Cooley, Human
Natureand theSocialOrder,
N e wYork,
Schocken,
1967(first
published
N e w
York, 1902).
Credit for the discovery of the
workingsof
this
principlein the
genesis ofselfand
communicationmust
of course
go
to
George H . M e a d .
See
especiallyMind,
Self
and
Society,
Chicago, Chicago
University Press,1967(first
published1934).
Compare
also
m y
'The
Constitutionof
Languagein theWorldof
Everyday
Life', in Lester
E . Embree (ed.),Life-World
and Consciousness: Essays
for
Aron Gurwitsch,Evanston,
111.,
Northwestern
University Press,
1972;and
'Elements
of a Social
Theory
of
Communication',
in
Luckmann,
Life-World
.
. . ,
op.
cit.,pp.
61-91.
10. But of course not in thefull
detail
provided byareviewof
research. For
that
see
Luckmann, 'Soziologie der
Sprache',
op.cit.,pp.23-39.
11. For a discussion of
pertinent
studies,see
m y
'Soziologie der
Sprache',op.cit.,pp. 35etseq.
12 . Researchinto
this
set of
phenomena
isof
relatively
recentorigin
and the
main
contributions
stemfrom
the
ethnography
of
communication
andrelatedfields.See,for an
early
collection,
John
Gumperz
andDell
H y m e s
(eds.),
'The
Ethnographyof
Communication', American
Anthropologist,
N o .
66,1964;
see
also
Richard
B a u m an
and
Joel
Sherzer (eds.),
Explorations
on the
Ethnography
of
Speaking,
London,
Cambridge
University
Press, 1974,andLuckmann,
'Soziologie der
Sprache',
op.
cit.,
pp.
54et seq.
13.
Forareviewof
relevant
studies,seeLuckmann,
'Soziologie der
Sprache',
op.
cit.,
pp.
41
et seq.
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
20/195
Language in
society
19
Bibliography
A A R S L E F F ,
H .
The
Studyof
Language inEngland,
1760-1860.
Princeton,
N ew
Jersey,
Princeton
University
Press,1967.
B A L L Y , C .Linguistique
gnrale
etlinguistiquefranaise.2nd ed.,
Bern, 1944.
(1st
ed. 1932.)
B A U M A N ,
R.;SHERZER,J.
(eds.).Explorationson the
EthnographyofSpeaking.
London,
CambridgeUniversity
Press,1974.
B O P P , F.ber dasConjugations-
systemder Sanskritsprachein
Vergleichung
mit
jenen
der
griechischen, persischen und
germanischen Sprache.
Frankfurt, 1816.
(Revised
Englishtranslation.
Analytical
Comparison oftheSanskrit,
Greek,
Latin
and
Teutonic
Languages, 1820.)
C O M T E , A.
Cours
de
philosophiepositive. Paris,
MaisonRouen,
then Bachelier,
1830-42.
6 vols.
C O O L E Y ,
C. H.HumanNature
and
SocialOrder.
NewYork,
Schocken, 1967.(Firstpublished
N e w York, 1902.)
C O U N T , E.W .Das Biogramm.
Frankfurt amMain, S.Fischer,
1970.
(Anthropologische
Studien.)
. OnthePhylogenesisof
Speech.
Current Anthropology,
Vol. 15, No.1, 1974,
pp. 14-16.
C R A N A C H , M. V.et al. (eds.).
Human Ethology:
Claims
and
Limitsofa NewDiscipline.
Cambridge,
Cambridge
University Press,
1980.
D O R O S Z E W S K I , W .
Quelques
remarquessur les
rapports
dela
sociologieetde
la
linguistique:
Durkheim
et
F. deSaussure.
In:
P .
Janet
and G.
D u m a n s
(eds.),
Psychologiedu language.Paris,
1933.
D U R K H E I M ,
E .Education
et
sociologie.Paris,1966.
(First
published
1922.)
DURKHEIM,
E.; M A U S S , M.De
quelques
formes
primitivesde
classification.
Contribution
l'tudedereprsentations
collectives.Anne
sociologique,
V o l . 6,1901/2.
E M B R E E ,
L. E .
Life-World and
Consciousness: Essaysfor Aron
Gurwitsch.
Evanston,111.,
Northwestern
UniversityPress,
1972.
G U M P E R Z ,J.;H Y M E S ,D.
(eds).TheEthnographyof
Communication.
American
Anthropologist, No. 66, 1964.
H U M B O L D T , W .
v.:
ber
das
vergleichende
Sprachstudium
in
Beziehung
auf die
verschiedenenEpochen
der
Sprachentwicklung.
In:
Abhandlungen derhistorisch
philologischenKlasseder
kniglich preufiischenAkademie
der Wissenschaften aus den
Jahren1820-21.
Berlin,
1822.
.
ber die Verschiedenheit
des menschlichen
Sprachbaues
und ihren Einfluauf die
geistige
Entwicklungdes
Menschengeschlechts.
Berlin,
1836.
.
ber den
Nationalcharakterder Sprachen
(fragment).Zeitschriftfr
Vlkerpsychologie
und
Sprachwissenschaft, Vol. 13,
1882.
J A C O B S O N , R.
MainTrends
in
theScience ofLanguage.
London.George
Allen
Unwin,
1973.
J A N E T , P.; D U M A N S , G.(eds.).
Psychologiedu
langage.
Paris,
1933.
L U C K M A N N ,
T.The
Constitution
of
Language
in the
Worldof
Everyday
Life.
In:
L . E . Embree (ed.),
Life-
World andConsciousness:
EssaysforAron Gurwitsch.
Evanston,111.,Northwestern
UniversityPress,1972.
.
Elements
of a
Social
Theoryof Communication.Life-
World and Social
Realities,
p p .
61-91. London,
Heinemann,
1983.
.
Life-WorldandSocial
Realities.London, Heinemann,
1983.
.PersonalIdentity as an
EvolutionaryandHistorical
Problem.
InM .v.
Cranach
et
al..
Human Ethology:
Claims
and
Limits
ofa NewDiscipline.
Cambridge, Cambridge
University
Press,
1980.
.
Soziologie
der
Sprache.
In: R . Knig (ed.), Handbuch
der
empirischen
Sozialforschung.
2nd ed, pp.
1-116.Stuttgart,
Enke, 1979.(English versionof
thefirstedition: TheSociology
of Language,
Indianapolis,
Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.)
M E A D , G. H .Mind, Selfand
Society.
Chicago, Chicago
UniversityPress,1967.(First
published
1934.)
M E I L L E T , A. C o m m e n t
les
mots
changentde sens. Anne
sociologique, Vol. 10, 1905/6.
.
Introductionl'tude
comparativedes langues indo
europennes.
Paris,Edouard
Champion,
1907.
(1st
ed.
as
Les
dialectes
Indo-Europens, Paris,
1903.)
.
Linguistiquehistorique
et
linguistiquegnrale.8thed.,
V o l . 1.
Paris,1948.
1st
ed.
1921.)
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
21/195
20 Thomas huckmann
P E D E R S E N ,
H .TheDiscoveryof
Language:
Linguistic
Science in
the 19th Century.Bloomington,
Indiana, IndianaUniversity
Press,
1962.
S A U S S U R E , F. de: Cours de
linguistique
gnrale. 5th ed
Paris,
1955. (1st ed. 1916.)
W U N D T , W . Vlkerpsychologie:
Eine
Untersuchungder
Entwicklungsgeschichtevon
Sprache,
Mythos undSitte.
Leipzig,Engelmann, 1904.
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
22/195
if-;;A;'a3 HK
:
Social
progress
a n d
sociolinguistics
Yunus
D .Desheriev
O f all theacquisitionsof h u m a n beings and of
h u m a n
society, the earliest, the most im
portant
and the
most
indispensable
were
w o r k , language and consciousness,
which
developed in a process of
continual
inter
action.Theywill
retain
thissignificancefor as
long as humanity exists.
M a r x
stated that
'Language
is as ancient as consciousness;
language is . . .active consciousness, . . .
like
consciousness, languagearisesonly from
the pressing need for
communication
with
other
people' [1, p. 29].
According
to Engels the
tw o
main
factors
which
stimulated the formation
and development
of the
h u m a n brain werefirstly
w o r k and then, in con
junction with w o r k , ar
ticulated speech [2,
p . 490] . It should
also
be
emphasized
that
language
and
consciousness are a
product of
society.
A
fundamental
proposition
of M a r x and Engels,
which states
that
con
sciousness
' w a s
fromthe very
outset
a product
of
society
and
will
remain so for as long as
people exist' [1, p. 29], applies
equally
to
language. The study of the
socialnature
of
language
and of the way in
which
the dis
tinguishing
features
of a
society
manifest
themselves in language is very
complex.
Althoughits
social role
is
paramount,
language
is
nevertheless
a very complex
p h e n o m e n o n ;
Professor
Y u n u s
Desherievich
D e s h
eriev is head of the Section of
Social
Linguistics
at the
Institute
of
Linguistics
of the A c a d e m y of Sci
ences
of the U S S R ,
M o s c o w , chair
m a n
of the
Scientific
Council on the
relationship between
the develop
ment ofnational languages and the
development
ofsocialistnations,and
author of m o r e than 250workson
general
linguistics,
social
linguistics
and
the
Caucasus.
theinteractions
between
its
social
andbiologi
cal elements and its
uninterrupted
organic
links
with the
emergence
and
development
of
h u m a n
thought and
social
consciousness de
serve close attention.
Language
must
there
fore be studied from all angles, taking as
points of
departure
the
various
branches of
knowledge. This
w o r k
dealsprincipallywith
the
social
aspectof language.
It is well k n o w n thatthe developmentof
societyencouragesinten
sive differentiation
in
every branch of
knowl
edge, and the birth of
n e w disciplines at the
junctures of
other
sci
ences
is afeature of our
age .
This is as
true
for
the science of
linguistics
as for any
other.
Just as
biophysics
arose
from the
juncture of biology and
physics and
physical
chemistry from the junc
ture
of physics and
chemistry, social linguis
tics arose at the juncture of sociology and
linguistics.
In any attempt to determine the
role
of
social factors in the operation, development
and
interactionof languages atvarious
histori
cal periods, it is
essential
to
rememberthat
w e
are
dealing
with a very
complex
process in
which all the
varied facets
of the social,
economic,political,culturalandscientificlife
of
societyinterweave and
interact. W e
are not
-
7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language
23/195
22
YunusD. Desheriev
goingto try tounravel
this
intricate w e bthat
has evolved with thehistorical
development
of
society,but simply,ata very
general
theoreti
callevel,todefine
s o m e
of themost important
ways inwhich social factors have influenced
the
operation,
development and
interaction
of
languages.
T h eproblemism a d e evenmore complex
by
the
fact that
the componentsof language
andtheirfunctions, which are determined by
varioussocial
factorsassociatedwith thelogic
of
social
development, spontaneous change
and
the conscious influence ofsociety, them
selves
combine and interact in new w a y s ,
concealing, inthe process, the primary cause
of
other
phenomena
and
their
modification
or
transformation in the course of time;inother
words,
thechain reactionoflinguistic evol
ution
often obliterates
alltraceof its initial
cause. Thesocial factors
that
play suchan
important role in the development of a
language
can, of
course,
be
extremely
varied
in
nature and
includetheemergence
of
agriculturein s o m e tribes andof
cattle-
farming in
others;
the emergenceof thestate,
of
primary and secondary schools, and
of
institutesofhigher education; thedevelop
ment ofvarious branches of the economy
and
industry; literacy, which is the
fruit
of
the mental activityof
mankind;
the
emerg
ence anddevelopmentofscience,
various
aspects
of
culture
andthe
arts;
theappear
ance
of
periodical
publications, the
cinema
andtelevision.
T h e social
approach
to thefactsof
language,
like
the
structural
approach,
is
not
n e w
in thehistoryoflinguistics.Thesocial
approach has atradition behind it, asevi
denced
byworksof M a rx and Engels suchas
The
German Ideology (1845-46) [1], Anti-
Diihring (1876-78) andTheOriginof the
Family, PrivateProperty and theState (1884)
[3].
Greatattentionhasbeendevoted to both
these aspects
bywriters on philosophy and
traditional linguistics(cf.
R . O .
Shor)
[67].
Great
progress
was
thus
m a d e
in the
nine
teenthcentury
in the
investigation
of language
as asocial